Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Sorting/moving physical images question

May 9, 2012 11:39 PM

I am trying to automate the sorting and movement of older photos into my preferred directory arrangement of capture year/day shown here:

2.jpg

 

From directories of older directories that were imported before I started using year/day:

3.jpg

 

This would be very tedious to do manually.   My next idea is to re-import them with MOVE option, but I would lose all the editing.  Is there any way to re-import these while preserving the edit steps?

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 4:38 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

     

    This would be very tedious to do manually.   My next idea is to re-import them with MOVE option, but I would lose all the editing.  Is there any way to re-import these while preserving the edit steps?

     

    1. Select the files

    2. Choose Save Metadata to file from Metadata menu. This will save your edits as XMP sidecar or ino the metadata header of each file

    3. Remove the files from Lr catalog

    4. Reimport files

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 5:19 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    I think the OP wants to preserve the History steps.

     

    Frans

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 5:51 AM   in reply to c.frans w

    There is no way to preserve the edit steps when you export or write metadata

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 3:20 PM   in reply to c.frans w

    Other than the user them a comfy blanket most history steps in Lr are as useful a handlful of melting snow. The only edit adjustments of any value are those associated with current slider position.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 11:59 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    Be aware that as well as the edit history steps, the following bits of information are also not written to XMP so would be lost when you remove and re-import: collection membership, flags, virtual copies, stacks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 8:09 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    You could view all photos and filter by date, then move each date into your dated folders.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 1:01 PM   in reply to Bob Gates

    Yes, that would be my preferred option, too.

     

    It proves something else, though:

    You can achieve this by filtering rules.

    So there is no need to have the folders organized like this.

     

    You could as well leave the images where they are and create the same structure as collections:

    1 collection set per year,

    Inside smart collections per date, you just have to define them.

    As you have with the missing date folders for already imported images.

     

    Such a folder structure i.o. a collection structure is just convenient for future imports, as you can have LR autocreate them as destination folders during import.

     

    It is always amazing how much most people cling to folder structure (myself not excluded) when bigger buckets would do, as collection organization does it as well and is available from every module.

    "Fingers off!" from file organizing on operating system- file browser level is valid anyhow.

    So why do we stick to folders so much?

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 4:08 AM   in reply to Bob Gates

    treborsetag wrote:

     

    You could view all photos and filter by date, then move each date into your dated folders.

    What a great idea!

     

    Let's take this one step further. The original poster already, using this great idea, has the ability to find photos by date. So having folders by date is redundant. Not only that, having folders by date is redundant! (Oh, wait I just said that, I am being redundant). You don't need to spend a lot of time and effort to create folders by date, because you already have the ability to find your photos by date. You gain nothing by putting in all this effort. Lots of effort for no benefit ... I don't like the sound of that.

     

    In my mind, the best  course of action is to leave your photos where they are, and put your effort into using Lightroom's other tools (keywords, captions, title) to organize via the content of the photos. And of course, if you need to find the photos from Aug 8, 2010, you can do so without having done the work to make folders by date.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 7:16 AM   in reply to Cornelia-I

    Cornelia-I wrote:

     

    Yes, that would be my preferred option, too.

     

    It proves something else, though:

    You can achieve this by filtering rules.

    So there is no need to have the folders organized like this.

    I agree, leave the folders alone.

     

     

     

    You could as well leave the images where they are and create the same structure as collections:

    1 collection set per year,

    Inside smart collections per date, you just have to define them.

    As you have with the missing date folders for already imported images.

     

    Why? You already have the ability to find photos by calendar year, or year/month, or year/month/date in the filter bar, or in smart collections. What is the benefit of specifically creating collections for year, or for year/month, or year/month/date?

     

    Furthermore, I always argue against calendar based organizing. You have thousands (tens of thousands?) of photos. Do you really remember the year/month/date of all of those thousands (tens of thousands?) photos? Do you really remember what year you took that photo of the kids at the beach? Will you remember five years from now? Of course not.

     

    When it comes time to locate a photo, are you thinking of photos by content? Yes. You don't think to yourself, I want the photos from august 12, 2010. You think to yourself, I want the photos from our vacation to Boston. If you are going to spend effort organizing, organize by content. Organize by keywords, captions titles and other metadata.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 3:19 PM   in reply to dj_paige

    Too true.

     

    But the only convenience reason for having a collection structure is if you want to go to another module like print or slideshow from it.

    Without you first have to do the library filter, select all results, then move on to the other module.

     

    I agree that such uses may be temporary, usually closer to capturing time when you are still creating the output to share with others.

    So you can trash the collections aftwards.

     

    Giving good thought to how to make head or tail of your image heritage years from now, together with your archiving strategy, is the (digital asset management) reason for LR for non-professionals, in my opinion.

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 1:04 AM   in reply to George in Seattle

    George,

     

    Did my original answer provide a satifactory solution. If not, then it would useful for the future to understand why.

     

    Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 1:23 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    For some follk (I include myself) find a workflow based on storing files in a folder by date is perfectly satifactory. Others prefer to use Collections and Smart Collections. Te second group tend to use workflow based around Peter Krogh's bucket system. The latter approach is dependent on metadata for it to work effeciently whereas the former doesn't. Once metadata is added to a file then there is precious little advantage to the bucket system inside Lr. Sure we may have a lot more folders, but they can be ignored if user uses collection/smart collections in the same way as folk using bucket system would use them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 12:34 PM   in reply to George in Seattle

    George in Seattle wrote:

     

    ...  The other advantage to a physical arrangement is that "rejected" means what it implies, and allows you to physically delete the file.  And the same goes for using the delete key --you cannot physically delete a file from a collection.  If you have 100 photos in a collection you want to delete, you have to mess around a bit to do it.  If I ever have any spare time, I am usually scanning for and deleting files that I did not have time to delete at the time.

    Hi George,

    So you might be happy that flags have now become global with LR4.

    Inside a collection just the Delete-Key has a different function, but the menu-command Photo-Delete Rejected Photos always works, even if you are still inside a collection. Keyboard shortcut is ctrl+backspace.

     

    George in Seattle wrote:

    I use color and star ratings a LOT because they are one-touch assignments during editing.  I use keywords the least because they are too dificult to assign when editing, and to manage in general.

    Yes, that is my gripe with keywords also: while doing develop work I get the idea for keywording, but then have to go back to Library and assign them. For star and colour ratings the keyboard shortcut just works, also in Develop.

     

    Regarding organisation I will also keep my buckets shoot-based and use collections on top/across them.

     

    Cornelia

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points