I have upgraded from LR2.2 to 4.1 . I have a drive dedicated to Images, Drive F, and all my images are in folders directly on that drive. So the drive itself is the 'Parent'. In LR2 I could Synchronise the drive, but in LR 4 after I have right-clicked on the drive in Library, and chosen 'Synchronise folder', and it has done all its counting, and I have clicked 'Synchronise', the Import window opens but I cannot access the Drive.I can choose any of the folders, and it will show me the new photos waiting to be imported, but I cannot do the whole drive. This was possible in LR2.2. Please tell me how to do this, or if it is not possible. I have 9000 images on the drive, I do not want to have to create a 'Parent' folder for all of them. Thanks.
Yes, in Library it shows up as Images 1 (F:), and when I right-click and say Synchronise, it tells me how many missing photos, I say Synchronise, and in the Import window the F Drive is also there, with a drop-down arrow that reveals all the folders. I can click on any of those to see any new images to be imported, but I cannot click or right-click on the Image drive itself.
I can get it to work if I start with the Import button in Library, bottom left, then in the Import window I can choose Images 1 (F:) as the Source, and it will show all new photos to be imported.
I would just like to be able to do it via Synchronise.
Thanks for your help.
Perhaps I am missing something - but you are trying to use "Synchronise Folder" on the root folder of a drive? Perhaps that is why it is not working as expected - it is not quite the same thing as a standard folder. At least in Windows, a root folder has unique status and file and user permissions operate differently there.
Your LR setup would function no differently in practice, if you were to instead house all of your image folders one or more levels lower in the file system. But IMO it would work more smoothly for you. You have the option to either show or hide these intervening folder levels, in the LR Folders listing.
Having the image folders grouped inside a system of one or more containing folders, makes overall management much easier and more flexible - for example, you can easily select the whole lot for backup, or to move to a different drive and readdress, with one "click".
Completely independent entities, on the other hand, have to be managed independently - which is much more work.
I personally prefer to use a year / month / day folders hierarchy. LR has made this for me, 100% automated, so it has not been any extra work. I can rapidly show all the images from a particular year, or from a particular month. Or from a particular day, or (which is generally the same thing, but does not have to be) from a particular folder only. Depending on the informative naming of all these folders, I can use a text search as well as clicking through the structure directly, in making productive use of this "deeper" organisation.
Hmm, gosh this good full well written reply is excellent. Really given me food for thought, thank you richard. I hadn't ever really thought about having to move all the folders to somewhere else. Yes, moving one folder at a time would be a slow process. In fact that is what I would now have to do to nest them inside a containing folder on the drive they are on now. That's going to be very time consuming, I'll have to think about it.
I decided long ago not to use a 'by year' system, as it becomes more difficult with time, to remember which year you did things or went somewhere, so my system is places and events which works for me.
I used to be able to 'Synchronise' the whole root drive in LR2 though, seems a pity I can't in 4. Don't understand why I can't.
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, moving one folder at a time would be a slow process. In fact that is what I would now have to do to nest them inside a containing folder on the drive they are on now. That's going to be very time consuming, I'll have to think about it.
It may be OK. When you move folders outside LR, say you put them all into a given new folder, they show up offline with a ?. Readdressing one item seems to extrapolate not only to the contents of that item if it is a folder, but also to any other currently offline items of the same kind to which the same thing has happened into the same location. Say, you move seven images and re-address one, the other six fix themselves also using the first one as a "clue". So it may be perfectly fine.
Or - you can simply do it inside LR - add a folder, drag. LR will both move the folders physically, and take care of the Catalog records at the same time. It used not to be possible, but you can now even highlight and drag multiple folders together.
As for the folder organisation: date folders are a long way from the only method by which peopple who use these, locate images. It is just the system that made most sense to me, since some kind of robust easy to use system was required that LR could implement hands free: at least images imported at the same time group themselves naturally together, rather than needing to be distributed around all kinds of different places depending on their subject or content.
Also a particular photo will always continue to have been taken on the day it was taken; that will never change. Subject categories, by contrast, are prone to be reconsidered or replanned, and it is really AFAICT against the ethos of LR to require physical moves of files in such a case. Not when merely changing keywords or collections around - adding in entire new parallel types of organisation, linked to the prior ones or entirely independent of them, at will - against images which otherwise stay still throughout - is so much more elegant and effective IMO.
Thankyou Richard, I will see if I can use LR to move all the folders on my Image drive to a new parent folder on the same drive. That would solve my difficulty with synchronising the whole lot at once. Thankyou again. Although I still haven't had an explanation or confirmation that It is no longer possible to do what I was doing in LR2.
Europe, Middle East and Africa