If you re-import, you will lose collections, flags, develop history, stacking and virtual copies, even if you have written out the XMP data.  That's okay for me since I don't use those features and can basically re-create my catalog any time I want.  For most people, this would be a problem.

I never understood the idea of importing into folders and/or filenames by date.  It's just a way to create redundant (and therefore, useless) metadata.  Copying the date from one metadata field (capture date, for example) to another (folder name or file name) doesn't seem to add any value to me.

Leave your present structure alone, other than perhaps ensuring all the folders are located under one overall folder. Import all future files into simple date ordered files. Stop worrying about folders and use LR to manage files. Restructuring folder orders is a pain and unnecessary.

Before I really understood LR I had folders all over the place and with names of shoots etc. I eventually brought all these together under one folder to make back ups and recovery easy. Since then files have been imported in date based folders, just for convenience, but as I never look at or make any use of folders in LR the structure is irrelevant.

I'm not a believer in the date folder structure, though I used to be so I do understand the appeal!

I import into sequential folders using the bucket method as one of my back-up routes is to DVD so the buckets (or folders) are about 4Gig each.  That means that some buckets have several days worth of photos and conversely some days have several buckets.  Photos are found using metadata entered at the time of importing photos (whether date or keywords or other).  The reason I gave up date based folders was to get away from a mess of nested folders but mainly for ease of back-up.

Nevertheless, I agree with John on the existing folders, it's too easy to make a silly mistake on moving things around and you might not realise you've made the mistake until much later by which times it's too late.  Hence, most of my older photos are still within date based folders!

I think (I haven't read the book so I don't know) that the Scott Kelby quote may be applying to a different situation where the files do not already exist within Lightroom. In that circumstance Scott's method seems entirely sensible to me. In the situation you are in - files already present within Lr - it would be the wrong approach.

Lr has the tools you need to move files around and rename files & folders, so there is no need to do this outside of Lightroom and, for all the reasons mentioned above, doing so would be a bad idea.

There are many different options for file structures, but whichever one you choose it makes sense to migrate your existing files to that structure too. Personally as a wedding & portrait photographer I do maybe 100 shoots per year, rarely more than one per day. I don't favour the Bin method as it makes backups easy to create but difficult to locate when you need them. My file structure is Year then Shoot Name then Raw / JPEG / Client / Etc as appropriate. My shoot name is based on the shoot date in reverse, so I use YYMMDD. This number - YYMMDD - is also my job number and appears on all the client paperwork and in all the filenames related to that client. My Raw files are renamed on import by adding the shoot name to the file name, so I get 101223_DSC1234.NEF. My finished files are renamed with a sequence, ie 101223001.JPG, 101223.002.JPG. Other factors like client details (for a repeat client), location, type of shoot are dealt with in keywords. By using a logical structure like this my files are easily accessible using any software, and should I ever (perish the thought) move away from Lightroom then the structure will migrate easily.

This is not necessarily the best structure for everyone, but it work for me. Whichever method you choose Lr will help you to migrate and manage your files well.

So called "JohnBeardy" wrote:

 

Assuming it was correctly quoted, that advice from Scott is poor and should be ignored. No ifs or buts.

Which is exactly what I said ... we are in agreement I think?

No, there's a big difference between "In that circumstance Scott's method seems entirely sensible to me" and saying that assuming the quote is correct it's wrong.

And you may want to think about using real name rather than misusing Adobe's tradename. Not a good idea. I do not believe you are an official outlet, simply certified.

John

My reading of the Kelby advice is to centralize all your image folders into one parent folder. For insatnce, on the Mac directory you might create a folder inside the User>Pictures folder called something like: MY_LIGHTROOM_PHOTOS. Inside this are your sub folders, date based or otherwise. Only photos for your LR catalog go into this folder. Photos and documents you don't want in your LR catalog (PDFs, other people's photos, redundant derivatives, Illustrator files, etc,) would be kept outside this folder.

This is in contrast to having some of your LR catalog images in your Pictures folder, some in Documents, some on the Desktop, some at root level, some on the portable drive, etc. This facilitates imports, backups and finding images if/when the link with LR gets broken.

I don't see why it's such bad advice for beginners, which is who Kelby's audience is.

John, the OP wrote:

"I want to reorganize everything into a single main folder, subdivided by  date, and rely on keywords and collections for sorting.  I know  everyone does it different but I am wanting to go the Scott Kelby route,  "You can have as many sub-folders inside that one main folder as  you want, but if you want to have peace, calm, and order in your  Lightroom, the key is not to import photos from all over your computer.  Choose one main folder and put all your photos inside that folder."

I'm having a hard time finding a problem here.

We have seen many people in the many different Lightroom forums/bulletin boards take Kelby's Library Module "advice" and contemplate, or actually do, something rather stupid.

To the original poster named formerjarhead, who said

I shoudl just take what I have and dump it to an external as is and then start fresh with the date style organization

I don't think that's what I (and several others) was advising. In fact, I advise the opposite ... don't go to date based organziation if you already have some other form of organziation or disorganization. I think it is a waste of time. If you really need date base searching, this exists the moment you import the photos into LR, even if your folders are not date based. Why? Because Lightroom allows you to search for all photos taken in January, 2010, or on January 18, 2010, or whatever. Do not put the effort into converting your existing organization or disorganization into date based folders, as you already have this capability inside Lightroom..

Instead, leave your folder names alone (if you want them all under a single parent folder so that backups are easier, then move them so that they are all under a single folder). Use date based folders for future photos (this is a default in Lightroom and so it takes no effort on your part). And don't worry that some folders use one form of naming and other folders use another form of naming. Use Lightroom tools ... keywords, metadata and collections to make your photos easy to find. Lightroom tools give you much more power and flexibility than anything you can set up using folder names. Why? Because a photo can be in only one folder, but a photo can have as many keywords as you want, be in multiple collections, and have large amounts of metadata (captions, titles, etc.), all of which is searchable.

And regardless of what Kelby is saying, we're saying there are better ways to do things, that Kelby's advice on the Lightroom Library Module is not good advice. Read and follow the advice that johnbeardy or Pete Marshall (or even I) have provided.

Forgive me, I don't know how to quote on ths forum.

johnbeardy wrote:

"Assuming it was correctly quoted, that advice from Scott is poor and should be ignored. No ifs or buts."

dj_paige wrote:

"And regardless of what Kelby is saying, we're saying there are better  ways to do things, that Kelby's advice on the Lightroom Library Module  is not good advice."

I'm not particularly a fan of Kelby, but I don't think you guys are making this topic any easier by misinterpreting him yourselves. Again, this is the quote in question:

"You can have as many sub-folders inside that one main folder as  you want, but if you want to have peace, calm, and order in your  Lightroom, the key is not to import photos from all over your computer.  Choose one main folder and put all your photos inside that folder. THEN  import them into Lightroom."

John, instead of accusing me of parsing it, and making assumptions about how other's may interpret it, can we deal with the quote itself, which both you and dj assail as written?

What specifically is the "poor" and "not good" advice here? Do you guys advocate have pictures from your catalog in various and asundry locations across one's system?