lightroom question re file folder and importing/saving images...

[msongs]

hello,

looking into lightroom use. right now in PS and others I go to any computer folder, open and image, edit, and save back to the same folder. As best I can figure watching tutorials in Lightroom I cannot do that, I have to create an entire new structure only for lightroom, thus duplicating images in a structure only useful for lightroom. Is this true or am I just not getting it right?

I use adobe dng convertor to do that right off the camera card and park it in a folder only for that use. DNG convertor is very quick.

Lightroom 4 is still available new and it seems that 5 is not that big of an upgrade especially for a person new to the program.

Just do want to have to duplicate everything as my file system is easy to use for my purposes.  Thanks!

Marshall

[Tony Jay]

Hi Marshall.

I cannot understand why you think an entire new folder structure is required for Lightroom.
Images can be added to the catalog by using the Add option in the import dialog.
No duplication and the images are added from where they are on the disk.

It seems to me that you would be well advised to do a lot more research before embarking on using Lightroom.
You have obviously been misinformed or you have misunderstood the sources that you mention.
If I were you I would download the Lightroom tutorials from this website as well as the "Where the $#@% are my Pictures" tutorial to get a better picture of the practical workflow involved.

Tony Jay

[Simon Garrett]

As Tony says, you can organise your files how you please in Lightroom.   When I started using Lightroom, I carried on using the file/folder structure I was already using.  No need to duplicate anything.  I just imported all my photos in situ into Lightroom.

The one thing about Lightroom: it maintains a catalogue (database) of all the images it knows about.  That means you need to "import" a photo before Lightroom can work on it.  "Import" just means "create an entry in the catalog".  It doesn't mean move or copy the file, although Lightroom will (if you want) create copies at the same time. 

[wolfnowl]

This might be of use to you: Basic File/ Folder Structure in Lightroom

Mike.

[msongs]

hello,
got the free lightroom and downloaded to try it out. figured out how to use the catalog system to meet my needs. dont really have 100's of pics to deal with.
what has made it worthwhile so far is the methods to lighten darkest areas without global lightening. my prints usually look fine except in darkest areas. also like to use lightroom on one monitor and the same image open in PS on my second monitor to compare what happens when I do different things. I think sharpening and color fine tuning are better in PS. I don't usually print out of PS and have yet to try printing in LR. they are just tools so have to learn what they are best at!

[PhotoEcosse]

I was fortunate in that I was a belated convert from film to digital and the first version of Lightroom was introduced at the same time as I bought my first dSLR camera. As Lightroom used terminology and processes that were fairly intuitive to a photographer (rather than the inane nerd-speak of other packages), I opted for it.

Now, all those years later, it is still the "hub" of all my photo-processing and all other processing software is accessed from within Lightroom.

The set-up that suits me is:

I have LR and other applications software on an internal hard drive.

I have numerous external 2Tb hard drives, mainly for back-ups, but of which two (plus their back-up drives) are dedicated to photographic files

G: is my Raw File Repository. Whenever I download Raw files from my card reader to my PC, Lightroom does it by copying the files from the card to G: using date of capture folders and, simultaneously, importing the files to the Lightroom catalogue.

H: is my Processed Image Library. Mostly I print direct from the processed Raws using Lightroom's Print Module but, if I require a Jpeg or Tiff for some other purpose, such as a PDI competition or International Salon, then I export the processed file from Lightroom into an appropriately named folder on H:. I also have a few other folders on H: for things such as "laboratory" images or image components, AV sequences, etc.

When G: is full (with my 45Mb D800 Raws it may only be another couple of years), I will simply add another external drive, for the sake of argument - M: Raw files from 1/1/16. Lightroom's catalogue will deal easily and simply with an extension to the system of that type.

As I say, it suits my purposes and has the advantage of being exceedingly simple.

[PeterAit]

 This is not the case. You can import photos into LR from any location and leave the original file where it is. The LR catalog will "know" where the photo is. If you create DNGs, they will, I believe, be put in the same place (although I have never heard any remotely legitimate reason for creating DNGs unless you have excess disk space you want to use up).

However, creating a dedicated folder structure for LR can be very useful in terms of organizing photos. When you import, the source file will stay in its original location and also be copied into the LR folder. Makes backups easier, too.

[b2martin]

I don't need or want the database capability of Lightroom, I have always processed my RAW files using Adobe Camera RAW and Bridge in Photoshop.  I have started using Lightroom because I don't want to use Photoshop CC and you can still purchase Lightroom. 

I set Lightroom to save Develop settings in XMP files, which is what I have always done with Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop.  When I want to edit images in Lightroom, I import them into Lightroom's catalog, complete the edits, export JPG file to a folder, and then remove the images form Lightroom's catalog.  Lightroom's catalog is empty unless I am editing images.  If I want to make changes to the image, I just import it again and it opens with the last edits since they are saved in the xmp files.  If I want multiple versions of the image saved, I just make snapshots of the various version and these are saved in the xmp files. 

If you don't want the database capability of Lightroom, this works great.  I know most Lightroom users will not approve of this flow, but it works the way I want. 

[john beardsworth]

It's certainly not a way that anyone would seriously recommend.

[PeterAit]

The fact that you are exporting as JPGs, only to re-import them later if needed, tells me you are a beginner (it's a really bad workflow). Nothing wrong with that, we all were beginners at one time. With all due respect, if you took the time to learn more about digital image processing you could surely come up with a way to do things that would be easier and give better results. Hanging around on these forums is a good way to start!

[digitaldog]

It's certainly not a way that anyone would seriously recommend.

Ditto! Maybe Photoshop Elements with ACR is a better fit for this person. The LR workflow is a kludge at best.

[wolfnowl]

(although I have never heard any remotely legitimate reason for creating DNGs unless you have excess disk space you want to use up)

Well, I can think of several, but one of them is that you can have LR check DNG files for 'bit rot'. 

Mike.

[Schewe]

...(although I have never heard any remotely legitimate reason for creating DNGs unless you have excess disk space you want to use up).

So, don't actualy "know" much about DNGs, huh Peter? Linear DNG, Lossy DNG, the free DNG Converter that offers backwards compatibility. Compression is only a tiny aspect...maybe you should bone up on the various advantages offered by DNG before you pass judgement over the DNG format. (hint, it's useful if you can learn to hide your ignorance rather than promote it).

Just sayin'

[Photo Op]

He's back!  Where ya been Bud?

[b2martin]

I don't reimport jpg files to lightroom, only RAW files if I want to improve on the initial adjustments. 

I have used Photoshop since version 3, not CS3.  I have always used ACR in Photoshop with Bridge to process RAW files and did not use Lightroom because of the database in Lightroom.  I have Photoshop CS6, but do not plan on using Photoshop CC, so decided to see what I could do with Lightroom 5 to duplicate the flow I used in Photoshop CS6 with Bridge and ACR.  Since importing into Lightroom does not move the actual image file I get exactly what I had with the Photoshop CS6 Bridge ACR flow - RAW files with xmp file in one folder and jpg files in another folder.  I can move these files any way I want between computers and external drives without affecting Lightroom's catalog since it's empty. 

[bjanes]

So, don't actualy "know" much about DNGs, huh Peter? Linear DNG, Lossy DNG, the free DNG Converter that offers backwards compatibility. Compression is only a tiny aspect...maybe you should bone up on the various advantages offered by DNG before you pass judgement over the DNG format. (hint, it's useful if you can learn to hide your ignorance rather than promote it).

Just sayin'

I'm no DNG expert, but do know a bit about it, having used the DNG converter and having read your section on DNG in your Digital Negative book  .

A major advantage of DNG over camera specific raw files (CR2, NEF, etc) is that parametric editing is stored in the DNG rather than in a sidecar file or database. However, as you point out, editing a DNG file changes the time stamp of the file and the whole DNG must be backed up, not merely the sidecar file or database entry. Ouch!

Linear DNG is an interesting concept, but as Doug Kerr observes, "The "linear DNG" format (in one situation) is essentially a transformation of a raw file (from a CFA camera) in which the raw data has been demosaiced but remains in the native camera color space (rather than, for example, now being in sRGB or L*a*b*)." Demosaicing a Bayer CFA file triples its size and the demosaicing process is baked into the file, and an improved demosaicing algorithm in a subsequently released raw converter can not be used. Of course, the linear DNG can be compressed, but the process is lossy.

Personally, I leave my Nikon raw files in the NEF format. About the only time I convert to DNG is to obtain additional metadata such as the BaselineOffset than ACR/LR use.

Regards,

Bill

[digitaldog]

A major advantage of DNG over camera specific raw files (CR2, NEF, etc) is that parametric editing is stored in the DNG rather than in a sidecar file or database. However, as you point out, editing a DNG file changes the time stamp of the file and the whole DNG must be backed up, not merely the sidecar file or database entry. Ouch!

In my experience, not an ouch at all. First, the same would be true if you edited any image and while the parametric edit is small compared to the rest of the DNG data, it's important and should be backed up. This could be done as separate from the DNG quite easily (simply turn off the Auto save XMP). For those of us that do backup the entire container even after embedding that tiny edit in the DNG, it is quite transparent and takes place while I'm sleeping and takes no further effort on my part.
DNG now checks data integrity of the data, less ouches! The files are smaller. They contain a rendered version of the edits if so desired in what can be a very high quality JPEG. That JPEG can be exported and printed should the poop hit the fan. DNG is far from prefect but the downsides (parametric editing is stored in the DNG) is neither a burden if backing up is setup as such and isn't required if you don't want to do that.

[john beardsworth]

However, as you point out, editing a DNG file changes the time stamp of the file and the whole DNG must be backed up, not merely the sidecar file or database entry. Ouch!

Really? Backup the DNG when it is first created, and routinely backup the catalogue - and you have 100% backup coverage of your pictures and all the work you've done on them. You just don't need to keep backing up DNGs.