Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Moving images from one collection to another  (Read 2860 times)

Mike Arst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Moving images from one collection to another
« on: September 11, 2007, 10:06:31 pm »

Perhaps my search here wasn't comprehensive enough...apologies if this duplicates earlier posts on this subject. I finally upgraded LR from 1.0 to 1.1 and immediately ran up against something perplexing with collections.

I had images in a collection (call it "A" for short) and created a child collection ("B") within it. I wanted to move certain images from "A" into "B". This, explains the documentation, is done by dragging them from "A" into "B" -- but it also notes that the files remain in the original collection. Well, that's "copying" and not "moving" (if you're thinking in file-system terms...which LR apparently isn't).

So following the "move" I decided simply to delete them from "A" since they were just duplicated there. They'd be gone from "A" and remain in "B," right? Nope...

I removed them from "A" -- and LR also removed them from "B" -- a totally unexpected result. (Repeatable -- I tried this sort of thing several times to be sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me.) So I thought I would just import them again. But LR refused, saying they were already in the database and displaying them within an "Already In Library" collection. I removed them from "Already in Library" -- so I thought -- and tried again. Same result, with "Already In Library" displayed again.

Ok...gave up on that and deleted the particular images from the library altogether. Then I re-imported them and finally moved them from the initial un-named (just after import) location to the desired collection. Fortunately, there hadn't yet been any edits done to them. Delete/re-import/move-to-desired-location did work...but geez...is there a way to perform a real move from one collection to another in a single step? Or remove them from one location without their being deleted from both, as described above?
Logged

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
Moving images from one collection to another
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2007, 11:33:22 pm »

Mike:  A Collection in LR is a logical one that has no bearing on where the actual physical file is stored.  It is completely possible to have a single photo in more than one collection.  The physical location of your file(s) is determined at import.  

hope this helps - John
Logged

Mike Arst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Moving images from one collection to another
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2007, 03:23:44 am »

> Mike:  A Collection in LR is a logical one that has no bearing on where the actual physical file is stored.  It is completely possible to have a single photo in more than one collection.  The physical location of your file(s) is determined at import.

[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']I mentioned file systems only by way of analogy; I'm well aware of the difference between the image as it appears (virtually, if you will) within the LR database, and on the other hand the physical file on disk. The question pertains to efficient organization of the database when the need arises to move objects around in it (as opposed to how to organize the physical files on disk).

In a file system -- any file system I've used (CP/M, DOS, Mac, Windows, Unix) -- copying an object places an identical copy of it in the destination; now there are two of them. Moving an object places the object in the destination and removes it from the source location; now there's only one object (in the destination). It's an old and familiar concept...

This doesn't seem to work within LR 1.1 (unless, again, this is entirely a RTFM sort of problem). "Moving" an image from one collection to another is actually copying it. But when the image is removed from the first collection, it is also removed from the second...and then it ends up in purgatory for a while -- the "Already In Library" collection (pseudo collection? virtual collection?).

These results are kinda counter-intuitive. Surely there must be a way to move these objects in that older-fashioned, file-system-like sense of "move." I can't imagine why not have such a feature in a database program, which presumably is using some kind of table system internally. Moving objects between tables is pretty old stuff for databases...[/span]
Logged

John.Murray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 886
    • Images by Murray
Moving images from one collection to another
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2007, 11:43:48 am »

Making the analogy between a database and a filesystem is not a good one.  Databases can easilly handle concepts and capabilities that are difficult if not impossible to achieve with a filesystem.

The idea of a one-to-many relationship (an apt description of LR collection behavior) or even a many to many relationship is easilly and often done in databases.

I would actually dis-agree with what you think is desireable behavior:

If I have an image of kids playing in the surf - I may choose to include that image in both my "kids" collection along with my "water" collection -I *don't* want two physical images, just the one.

Deleting an image from one collection will *not* affect other collections *unless* the other collection is a child - which to me makes perfect sense as the child collection is by definition a subset of the parent.

Although I haven't physical looked at the LR 1.1 DB (I have played with the 1.0 DB's) collections are most likely implemented as a some related tables:


(just an example - this model does not handle child collections)

As you can see - "moving" an image from one collection to another is nothing more than changing a number in the lookup table, very efficient, very clean.

I think what is also adding to the confusion was Adobe's changing definition of what a collection actually is from beta to final release versions
« Last Edit: September 12, 2007, 11:49:54 am by Joh.Murray »
Logged

Mike Arst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Moving images from one collection to another
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2007, 03:15:44 pm »

> Making the analogy between a database and a filesystem is not a good one.  Databases can easilly handle concepts and capabilities that are difficult if not impossible to achieve with a filesystem.[/font]

Actually, it was a suitable analogy considering what I had hoped the program would do (whether or not file systems and databases can be compared that way in terms of how they work under the hood). But, comparison-wise, think "DFS" -- a one-to-many(sort-of) relationship within a file system.

> I would actually dis-agree with what you think is desireable behavior:[/font]

Ok . . . that boils down to one opinion about desirable program behavior vs. another. I'll keep my own counsel in that regard, but I wouldn't insist that what I'm talking about here be the default behavior. I'd prefer having a choice in the matter.

Sounds as if the key to this is the parent/child relationship of the collections I've been using and I'll try it using collections having "peer" relationships.

> I think what is also adding to the confusion was Adobe's changing definition of what a collection actually is from beta to final release versions[/font]

The "shoots versus collections" concept was neither well explained nor especially well documented, and I was right happy they got rid of it. Now, if they'll just streamline the process of getting images into a collection, during import -- a simple context menu item would do the job -- right-click a collection's name, then select "Import here..." from the context menu, skipping the (current) interim steps...
« Last Edit: September 12, 2007, 03:19:47 pm by Mike Arst »
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
Moving images from one collection to another
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2007, 09:01:50 am »

Quote
In a file system -- any file system I've used (CP/M, DOS, Mac, Windows, Unix) -- copying an object places an identical copy of it in the destination; now there are two of them. Moving an object places the object in the destination and removes it from the source location; now there's only one object (in the destination). It's an old and familiar concept...
But file systems also have something that you also should be familiar with, namely links.

Windows and Unix (including MacOS X) file systems support linking of files as aliases ("shortcuts" in Windows, "symbolic links"/"symlinks" in Unix).

Delete the shortcut, but don't delete the file.

Unix semantics also support something called a "hard link" (really, just a "link"), where two file names point to the same "real" file. As opposed to the symlink, you can't see which is the original, because neither is the original.

To continue with your analogy, Lightroom has the Library, in which the master images are referenced or stored, depending on your preferences. The images in the collections are merely such shortcuts or symlinks to the "real" image.

Quote
This doesn't seem to work within LR 1.1 (unless, again, this is entirely a RTFM sort of problem).
It's more of a "take a tutorial" kind of problem.

Quote
"Moving" an image from one collection to another is actually copying it. But when the image is removed from the first collection, it is also removed from the second...and then it ends up in purgatory for a while -- the "Already In Library" collection (pseudo collection? virtual collection?).
That's because it's still in the library, just not in any collection. You can add it back to a collection at a later time.

Also, the picture isn't removed from one collection when you delete it from another. This seems to be a misconception based on your use of hierarchical sorting of your images.

When you look at a parent collection, it will display the image references for all its children. Remove the reference, and yes, it's gone.

In terms of your file system experience, consider looking at a parent collection as typing "ls -R collection" in Unix, or "dir /s" in MS-DOS/Windows cmd.

Quote
These results are kinda counter-intuitive.
They're not counter-intuitive. They are merely different to what you're used to doing.

A common saying is that "the only intuitive interface is the nipple" - but even using that is a skill the baby needs to learn.

Quote
Surely there must be a way to move these objects in that older-fashioned, file-system-like sense of "move." I can't imagine why not have such a feature in a database program, which presumably is using some kind of table system internally. Moving objects between tables is pretty old stuff for databases...[/size][/font]
You can move them, but only to different children collections.
Logged
Jan
Pages: [1]   Go Up