Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: msongs on October 29, 2015, 01:13:47 am
-
this program has created folders in libraries -> my pictures and I think they are from lightroom as it does not actually say and I did not create them. each folder is a different year as the folder name. so is it safe to delete these folders or will it erase all my hard drive files if I do? there is a separate folder with the lightroom icon and it has a bunch of files that are empty.
-
this program has created folders in libraries -> my pictures and I think they are from lightroom as it does not actually say and I did not create them. each folder is a different year as the folder name. so is it safe to delete these folders or will it erase all my hard drive files if I do? there is a separate folder with the lightroom icon and it has a bunch of files that are empty.
What's in 'em?
Jeremy
-
What do the folders contain? If there are subfolders titled "Imported on dd-mm-yy" and inside those are duplicates of your imported photo files, then it seems you have the "make second copy" box ticked in the Import dialog. Or are they your originals?
In principle, there are only two things that should not be deleted. The LR catalog file, LR Catalog.lrcat (by default in My Pictures/Lightroom and your original photo files. Anything else LR can create as and when needed.
-
Anything else LR can create as and when needed.
.......but some, like previews, can take many hours.
-
This depends entirely on how you have set up your Import dialog in Lightroom.
It is quite possible that these folders contain your original raw image files and that Lightroom is referencing these files. If that's the case, then you really ought not delete them. :)
One easy way to check is to open Lightroom, find a photo, right click it and choose "Show in Finder" (on a Mac). You will see what folder Lightroom is pointing to for your raw files.
-
I'm with Ken, if you use the default import straight from your memory cards (or camera) these folders contain your original raw images so it's very dangerous to delete them.
The lightroom icon folder your catalog file (plus any backup catalogs the program created) and should also not be deleted.
Do you make backups of your raw files? I think it's quite risky to only have them in one place on your hard drive, if that crashes all your pictures will be gone.
-
these pictures are also found in their original folders on my data storage hard drive. so the lightroom related images appear to be duplicates. and I do have backup hard drive. lightroom does not seem to be very well designed if it causes all this chaos
-
Do you have "make a second copy to ...." in the import dialog checked?.
That might cause these duplicate files.
-
these pictures are also found in their original folders on my data storage hard drive. so the lightroom related images appear to be duplicates. and I do have backup hard drive. lightroom does not seem to be very well designed if it causes all this chaos
Lightroom tells you what it is doing. You probably haven't read a dialog box or understood it before you clicked OK.
Rename those folders in Explorer/Finder and see if it causes you any problem in Lightroom. After a while, then back them up and delete them.
-
Lightroom tells you what it is doing.
How is LR telling you what it is doing with regard to the OP's duplicate folder issue. Where in LR's user interface does it tell the OP this?
I still haven't figured out what the real issue is about and whether the OP got his question answered. I just found out after some time getting to know LR4's PV2012 processing that I've never imported any images (only "Synced" folders I've added new images to)
But I finally figured out what that import dialog box looks like when I dragged and dropped a png image onto LR's Library module where I panicked upon seeing the entire interface change with a Mac HD icon on the left and "My Catalog" on the right. I just canceled out because LR wouldn't tell me anything about what was happening except to offer a myriad of options scattered about the bounding box of what I wanted to do with the file.
GEE! All I wanted to do is open the file in LR so I could do a little editing. Why does the catalog have to get into the middle of this simple task? End of rant! Maybe.
-
How is LR telling you what it is doing with regard to the OP's duplicate folder issue. Where in LR's user interface does it tell the OP this?
The word "Copy" is in big letters in the Import dialog box.
Yes, without knowing the user's steps, I'm also unsure what the underlying issue may be. But from my experience of Lightroom, I'd be placing my bets on him having chosen Copy - or something else completely unrelated to Lightroom.
-
The word "Copy" is in big letters in the Import dialog box.
Yes, without knowing the user's steps, I'm also unsure what the underlying issue may be. But from my experience of Lightroom, I'd be placing my bets on him having chosen Copy - or something else completely unrelated to Lightroom.
Yeah, and you REALLY do need to click on each of the options listed top dead center in LR's UI (see LR4 screengrab) some with specific instructions and some with "To/From" interface changes you have to pay attention to. And if you're viewing on a large 27" screen it's best to take your time taking note just exactly what's going on.
It's LR's level of specificity on something as simple as opening an image/images that brings up more questions than answers on what else is going on under the hood.
Not sure why when I drag/drop a file from my desktop onto LR's Library I can't get the "Import" button to become clickable choosing any of the options listed. It being grayed out didn't make it easy to find either upon first seeing this dialog box (and really not a dialog box since it's huge taking up the entire LR bounding box frame). Dialog boxes are usually small pop up or tabbed panels that hover over the larger frame interface.
-
....
GEE! All I wanted to do is open the file in LR so I could do a little editing. Why does the catalog have to get into the middle of this simple task? End of rant! Maybe.
Ha! Ha! ;)
That's what I'm trying to do also in LR6 and all I get is a bunch of panes (pains?) for my effort.
Okay. I really do HATE Lightroom's Catalog, Collections, Library, and inane image Browser system since I run between 9-10 external plug-in USB drives and the cached Catalog/Collections/Whatever is a total mess to deal with as it constantly pulls up images it cannot find as they are off on the externals (I keep no images on the editing computer.). Gawd, could they make it any more complex?
Temp storage images to be worked on are in a C: "Photo 1" folder. Lightroom 6 doesn't show all folders on C: drive unless Imported, and still that folder isn't showing up at times too. Should be there in the left pane by default as well as all folders on C: drive, but LR6 seems choosey on which to show. Opens up Browser > Select Folder and no images are shown (Seems they should, but oh well, it's Adobe LR6 after all.).
Once selected, it opens the images but all are dark and say "Already Imported" but I cannot open them in LR editor into the Develop module. Sometimes "Not Found" even though they are there too. Close it down and I get the "Back Up Catalog" box, select "Backup" and the program closes down. Great!
Reopening and back into this circle of mess....and the Photo 1 folder is still not shown after the above mess and back up.
I'd like to know if there is any way to make LR6 behave as a normal "File Explorer/Manager" without opening a bunch of extra windows and a wild goose chase for images to show up in Develop (edit) or whatever they want to call it module? I shouldn't have to spend hours opening and closing panes, cataloging, collections, backup, deleting cached catalogs, etc. to edit one image moved onto the C: drive - or try find it again in their elusive browser and multiple panes to sort through.
Seems worse if one uses a lot of external USB drive too, and if one doesn't want to use Library, Collections, or Cataloging since some get moved in Photoshop and copied over or moved independent of LR. Never can find images since they lie in a LR cache locally. Wish they'd make the software's image browser work without a plethora of extra windows opening and closing and searching. Drag and drop anyone? How about a simple "File Manager" without the need for Imports, Collections, Libraries, Exports, Save as... , etc.
Anyone know a good source (Preferably a book that I can mark up and sit nearby for LR6.) that explains this OVERLY COMPLEX "Open an image" system of theirs? I think it's getting a lot worse with each edition too. Some sick programming person in the Library/Catalog/Collections is getting carried away making it too complex to get to an image. LR7 will probably have another 4-5 obscure image imports as well.
Tia, and bit of a rant too! Shouldn't be this hard.
SG
-
Geez, your workflow setup makes LR function like network server software. High volume wedding and event photographers must have a heck of time keeping all that straight in their head.
I just noticed something odd with my screenshot. The top Import options are designed as words without a bounding box to suggest they're clickable compared to the long established & familiar "Cancel" & "Import" buttons.
That was another thing that first confused me upon first seeing "Add","Move", etc. in the "Import" interface in that only one was highlighted "Add" as if LR has sensed what the user is doing and not made the others clickable. I had to just risk it and click on the others in hopes it didn't change the interface into something I couldn't back out of.
-
I'd like to know if there is any way to make LR6 behave as a normal "File Explorer/Manager"
Start your own thread, but be prepared for the answer - No, that's not the idea.
Seems worse... if one doesn't want to use Library, Collections, or Cataloging since some get moved in Photoshop and copied over or moved independent of LR. Never can find images since they lie in a LR cache locally.
No, the image remain where they are in Explorer (right click any image or folder to "Show in Explorer"). Lr simply catalogues where the files are actually located.
To be frank, you probably need to read this (http://www.lightroomqueen.com/quickstart/) or other starter guides.
-
Is this funny or is it sad? Whinges and whines today, "LR is too complex and confusing, too many choices not easily understood , it takes too long," and two weeks ago (or was it three?) the 'net was inundated with screams, "Simplify LR import? No, no, we demand the old complexity back!" Theatre of the Absurd.
-
Is this funny or is it sad? Whinges and whines today, "LR is too complex and confusing, too many choices not easily understood , it takes too long," and two weeks ago (or was it three?) the 'net was inundated with screams, "Simplify LR import? No, no, we demand the old complexity back!" Theatre of the Absurd.
Well, I don't think it's the same people, but I agree, it's very hard to please every user.
-
Is this funny or is it sad? Whinges and whines today, "LR is too complex and confusing, too many choices not easily understood , it takes too long," and two weeks ago (or was it three?) the 'net was inundated with screams, "Simplify LR import? No, no, we demand the old complexity back!" Theatre of the Absurd.
I had the same thought. So are these guys merely the "selfie crowd (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)" that Adobe were supposed to be "dumbing down" Lightroom for? Or are they fellow photographers whose "motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)"?
-
I'd like to know if there is any way to make LR6 behave as a normal "File Explorer/Manager" without opening a bunch of extra windows and a wild goose chase for images to show up in Develop (edit) or whatever they want to call it module?
No, that's not what Lightroom is for. You should be using Adobe Camera Raw and (maybe) Bridge. ACR has the same processing engine and a similar user interface, but none of the database features that so annoy you. For anyone who wants to forgo the Lightroom catalog/import/export/database, and who wants to keep their photos in all sorts of places, and *remember for themselves* where everything is, use ACR. It works.
-
I'd like to know if there is any way to make LR6 behave as a normal "File Explorer/Manager" without opening a bunch of extra windows and a wild goose chase for images to show up in Develop (edit) or whatever they want to call it module? I shouldn't have to spend hours opening and closing panes, cataloging, collections, backup, deleting cached catalogs, etc. to edit one image moved onto the C: drive - or try find it again in their elusive browser and multiple panes to sort through.
For most users, the Lightroom view of files is identical to the Explorer / File manager view. See a couple of screen scrapes for my LR catalogue from a couple of years ago:
(http://www.simongarrett.co.uk/CaptureWindowsLRFolders.jpg)
The only difference is that the LR view contains only folders and images you've chosen to import.
As others have suggested, your comments suggest that you don't really understand the function of the Lightroom catalogue. If you don't want to understand it, then just use something else.
-
I had the same thought. So are these guys merely the "selfie crowd (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)" that Adobe were supposed to be "dumbing down" Lightroom for? Or are they fellow photographers whose "motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html)"?
Not everyone is a retired engineer, lawyer, doctor or downsized film lab imaging technologist/specialist who have time and money to burn learning and functioning under such complexity when there are so many more people enjoying picture taking of rare moments in life that get enormous amount of attention over what is being produced by the aforementioned according to YouTube hits.
Again, it's just a picture, folks! What's with all the complexity? Whatever happened to just getting it done and making the software get out of the way?
-
For most users, the Lightroom view of files is identical to the Explorer / File manager view. See a couple of screen scrapes for my LR catalogue from a couple of years ago:
The only difference is that the LR view contains only folders and images you've chosen to import.
As others have suggested, your comments suggest that you don't really understand the function of the Lightroom catalogue. If you don't want to understand it, then just use something else.
Simon, 30 years from now could you find one image located in that densely packed folder directory if all you had to go by was a print from someone wanting a copy? That person wouldn't know or remember the date it was taken so you have nothing to go on in a search.
In addition can you remember any image and what it looks like taken in 2007 and know what search terms to use but didn't know for sure it was taken in 2007? Out of sight is out of mind. If you don't know the image exists because you can't remember what it looks like, how does one search for it in that directory?
Has anyone conducted a thorough efficacy test randomly searching for images using an organized by date folder structure tabulation of thousands of photos as Simon illustrated? And can you find everyone of those thousands of images on a random search? Any YouTube demos showing how easy it is?
I don't think anyone in this thread is thoroughly thinking this through and is more hell bent on defending a piece of software instead of offering real POV's to solutions and usage efficacy.
-
I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.
I just conducted a normal American guy "attention span" experiment where I had to rely on my memory of a news blip I caught on TV. The channel I was on I can't remember. All I could remember is the line a shirtless guy said to a blonde, hotty, news reporter..."Hey! You're super pretty! Want to go out on a date?"
I went straight to YouTube and entered that saying. Didn't get anything. Entered "shirtless guy asking reporter on a date"...got a large selection of this video of various time lengths and media outlet sources.
Here's the video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEwF27TjU6M
I then asked myself how would I find a photo using similar description parameters and reliance of sparse information? Would I find it as fast using YouTube's search indexing system over a user generated LR indexed keyword system? Or would I need to be more specific in my search for an image no one knows or cares about except me. How fast do you think you could find it?
-
If you don't know the photo exists because you can't remember it, why are you looking for it? :)
Yes, I personally and professionally believe that proper captions and keywords make my photos recoverable, even though I organize them by date shot. I prove this on a weekly basis when somebody asks me for a specific photo, either with a general description, or by sending me a web thumbnail from which all the metadata has been stripped. I can lay my hands on the file within a few minutes. But then I am totally OCD about adding captions and keywords to everything that I shoot at work.
(And btw very little of this is within Lightroom itself. I started cataloguing with LR about two years ago, but my digital files go back to ~2000. I can use our online DAM product, or I can use Spotlight to search my server with all the raw files.)
At home I do have all my personal digital photos catalogued in Lightroom. I'm not quite as obsessive about captions and keywords, but of course I have many many fewer files. I also make extensive use of collections and especially Smart Collections, and I do spend time going through older parts of the catalog to re-edit and re-apply metadata. Even there, I can find a photo within a few minutes.
-
Would I find it as fast using YouTube's search indexing system over a user generated LR indexed keyword system?
Yes - if you had only taken the trouble to add a few keywords, and maybe a title or caption. See the Library's Metadata Filter (the 4 columns) or create a smart collection - which lets you save those search criteria for use next week / year etc. Think of it as a bookmark.
-
If you don't know the photo exists because you can't remember it, why are you looking for it? :)
Yes, I personally and professionally believe that proper captions and keywords make my photos recoverable, even though I organize them by date shot. I prove this on a weekly basis when somebody asks me for a specific photo, either with a general description, or by sending me a web thumbnail from which all the metadata has been stripped. I can lay my hands on the file within a few minutes. But then I am totally OCD about adding captions and keywords to everything that I shoot at work.
(And btw very little of this is within Lightroom itself. I started cataloguing with LR about two years ago, but my digital files go back to ~2000. I can use our online DAM product, or I can use Spotlight to search my server with all the raw files.)
At home I do have all my personal digital photos catalogued in Lightroom. I'm not quite as obsessive about captions and keywords, but of course I have many many fewer files. I also make extensive use of collections and especially Smart Collections, and I do spend time going through older parts of the catalog to re-edit and re-apply metadata. Even there, I can find a photo within a few minutes.
And how much time combined have you spent keywording all those images going back to 2000? What did it come out to if paid by the hour? Factor in the time searching for said images based on those keywords.
-
And how much time combined have you spent keywording all those images going back to 2000? What did it come out to if paid by the hour? Factor in the time searching for said images based on those keywords.
How do you think the clip on YouTube was found? YouTube doesn't have software which recognises blondes being asked out on dates. The clip was found because someone tagged it with some or all of the words you used to search for it, and YouTube has sophisticated search algorithms. Tag your photos in LR like that and you stand some chance of finding them. The searching won't be as good as YouTube, but it's not that bad.
Jeremy
-
And how much time combined have you spent keywording all those images going back to 2000? What did it come out to if paid by the hour? Factor in the time searching for said images based on those keywords.
A few minutes with each set of new pictures. More, if you want, but it soon builds up.
-
Simon, 30 years from now could you find one image located in that densely packed folder directory if all you had to go by was a print from someone wanting a copy? That person wouldn't know or remember the date it was taken so you have nothing to go on in a search.
In addition can you remember any image and what it looks like taken in 2007 and know what search terms to use but didn't know for sure it was taken in 2007? Out of sight is out of mind. If you don't know the image exists because you can't remember what it looks like, how does one search for it in that directory?
Has anyone conducted a thorough efficacy test randomly searching for images using an organized by date folder structure tabulation of thousands of photos as Simon illustrated? And can you find everyone of those thousands of images on a random search? Any YouTube demos showing how easy it is?
I don't think anyone in this thread is thoroughly thinking this through and is more hell bent on defending a piece of software instead of offering real POV's to solutions and usage efficacy.
When I'm tryng to locate an image, I find the date, location and the event or shoot are the most likely things I remember. That's why I include the date (year/month) and location or event in the folder name. In addition, when I import into LR, I rename to include something meaningful in the name (shoot name or whatever). I also add keywords when I remember (or when there's something relevant not in the shoot name, e.g. names of people). And often stuff goes in collections. It's pretty rare that I can't find an image (out of 70k in my catalogue over the last 15 years) within a minute or so.
LR has the advantage that a text search (for any text field) is very fast. I don't think it really matters how you put images in folders so long at you put relevant information in folder names, file names, collections or metadata somewhere - anywhere that LR can search. For me, date structured folders work well. It's easy: all images from a shoot go in the same folder when they're imported, and they never move thereafter. Any subsequent organisation is by means of collections or searchable metadata.
-
And how much time combined have you spent keywording all those images going back to 2000? What did it come out to if paid by the hour? Factor in the time searching for said images based on those keywords.
1. It's my job. Full captions, with names of the people in the photo, are an industry standard in photojournalism, and I carried that over when I took a university staff photog job.
2. It takes a few minutes to caption and keyword everything from an assignment using Photo Mechanic when I first download the images and do the initial edit. It's trivial. I never had to go back and do this to fifteen years of photos, it was done all along.
3. Factor in the time it would take me (or a web team member, or a graphic designer, or a news writer) to find a photo if it DIDN'T have any caption or keywords. They would literally be imopossible to find. I guess that's a time-saver. :o
-
...I don't think anyone in this thread is thoroughly thinking this through and is more hell bent on defending a piece of software instead of offering real POV's to solutions and usage efficacy.
On the contrary, I think many of us have struggled with keeping track of increasing numbers of images. Before LR ever existed I had my photos organized in a folder system similar to Simon's -- a system that makes sense to ME and which makes it likely I'll be able to find an image I'm looking for.
But Lightroom has made this much quicker and easier. It works with my existing folder system, not changing it, but referring to it by creating a catalog to which I can add keywords and other metadata that make it even easier for me to locate images. When I import new work directly from CF cards, Lightroom is flexible enough to allow me to continue with my existing folder system while adding those keywords during the download. It has really worked well for me.
So... I have thought it through. I've been thinking about it since I organized my slides by categories and dates and ran a separate database to tell me which file drawer I should look in. I'm not hell bent on defending Lightroom -- I'm describing why it works for me.
But I haven't seen anything from you "offering real POVs and solutions to usage efficacy" -- just that it's too complicated. How do you think it should work, Tim?
-
GEE! All I wanted to do is open the file in LR so I could do a little editing. Why does the catalog have to get into the middle of this simple task? End of rant! Maybe.
That's what Bridge/ACR is for. ;)
-
spent 15 minutes deleting single images and checking the original folders to make sure the original images were still there and they were. So deleted all those mystery folders. all those unnecessary folders that is.