Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

organizing folders...how to move a folder from the top of folders...

Nov 15, 2012 5:53 AM

...panel to the bottom.  normally i would just drag and drop it but i have too many folders to scroll through.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 6:03 AM   in reply to harveyabc

    Do you mean change the order of your folders as shown in the LR Folder Panel?

     

    I don't think LR has such a feature.

     

    Some people force certain folders to sort differently, for example, by adding the letter Z at the beginning of the folder name

     

    Some people reduce the number of folder shown by creating a hierarchy of subfolders

     

    Some people don't have this problem using the Folder Panel because they don't organize via Folders, they use other LR tools for their organization

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 6:17 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    If you have or can impose some kind of a reasonably fine-grained folder tree, you can collapse and expand parts of this folder list in a structured way, and so make best use of the screen display space. A system where (say) a whole year's worth of event specific folders are accumulated as one very long list, may be more difficult to use than one which interposes a weekly / monthly / whatever level of subdivision.

     

    Also if you use (say) a whole catalog / YYYY / MM / day-based hierarchy, or some similar subject- or client- or other-classification-based hierarchy, and you have "include subfolders" checked, you then have flexible possibilities ranging from a very broad selection set, down to a very narrow one.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 8:24 AM   in reply to harveyabc

    when you say other lr tools -do you mean keywords and metadata.  i find metadat to be invaluable.

    Yes, of course, that is what I mean.

     

    I cannot understand your choice of using folders for everyone in the Smith family. This is what metadata is ideally suited for. If you have a photo of two people in the Smith Family, you assign keywords indicating which two people are in the photo. If you do this by folders, which folder do you put it in? Or do you put it in both folders?

     

    More broadly, why put such energy into having the desired folder structure, since using metadata overcomes the deficiencies of organizing by folders, especially when you find "metadata to be invaluable"? Why don't you simply use the metadata to organize and search, making the folder structure irrelevant. You are putting great energy into organizing your folders, when in my opinion, you should be putting all of that energy into organizing your photos.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 3:12 PM   in reply to harveyabc

    I didn't recommend deleting folders .

     

    I do recommend not doing another smidgeon of work using folders. Working on folders, even if you are deleting them, provides no benefit whatsoever, if you are committing yourself to use keywords. No benefit, but it takes work? I don't like the sound of that. Leave everything exactly where it is. Use default folder names for future imports. Use metadata (primarily keywords) as your organizing tool, and no more searching via the LR Folder Panel or via your operating system.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 7:56 PM   in reply to dj_paige

    dj_paige wrote:

     

    Why don't you simply use the metadata to organize and search, making the folder structure irrelevant.

     

    Folder structure is only "irrelevant" if you are commited to using Lightroom for the rest of your life, and you believe Adobe & Lightroom will outlive you. And there are other considerations for some users too.

     

    @2012, Lightroom collections are not readable outside of Lightroom.

     

    Don't me wrong - metadata/keywords good... - but folder structure (and filenames) irrelevant? - not to me...

     

    Don't get wrong #2: folder structure should be simple and future-proof as much as possible (re-organizing based on photo content is not recommended), e.g.

     

    year/day-and-event-or-shoot-title

     

    e.g.

     

    2011/2011-03-22 Zion in Spring

    2011/2011-03-23 Zion in Spring

    2012/2012-12-25 Christmas

    2013/2013-01-01 New Years

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 3:27 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    In deciding whether to reflect a particular kind of picture classification via folders, or by other means, IMO one should consider:

    • is this distinctive and unique for each one... for example. a picture might have been taken in "2009", or in "2010" (etc), but never "don't know", "none" or "in more than one year"
    • what happens with overlaps... for example: say I put all my dog and cat pictures into a "domestic-animals" folder, and all my cow and sheep pictures into a "livestock" folder - would this help or hinder me,. to show Fred's sheepdog and Fred's sheep together, while still being able to show Emily with her cat but separate from Emily's cows?
    • might I want to use this classification as part of physically managing the files - backup, archiving, moving to different volumes - one reason a top-level "year" makes sense to many people
    • do I want pictures to physically move around as I re-classify them in a given respect, or is this classification innate enough that once first filed into a system, the picture will be able to then always stay put? (much cleaner for file backup etc, also for continuity across current, duplicate and older backup Catalogs) 
    • can LR help me to implement the location of my folder during import (another reason why some kind of date arrangement is common: e.g., you can get LR to file to the right year, or year-month, and type the detailed subfolder name in yourself in the import dialog)
    • can LR help me at an individual picture level during import? (e.g., by automatically subdividing pictures that were taken across several days)
    • how many folders are going to potentially appear in a single list - is this going to be easily "browse-able", or am I going to be forced to type in and then search by specific text each time (which is one reason for suggesting an intermediate level between "year" and "individual event"/"day")
    • is there any case for separate catalogs... though I would suggest using this only for a really big and 100% clear distinction - in my own case, "business" vs "personal". (I regard all time and attention spent on these two, as entirely distinct - as a matter of preference as well as of practicality. So in this case, such separation is even of positive benefit, and not any kind of a compromise.)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 4:24 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Folder structure is only "irrelevant" if you are commited to using Lightroom for the rest of your life, and you believe Adobe & Lightroom will outlive you. And there are other considerations for some users too.

    Keywords are transferrable to any other photographic application, and also can be read by your operating system. Even if you choose to stop using Lightroom at some point, your keywords don't automatically disappear, they are still available for you to use as your method of organizing/search.

     

    Oh, and when I said folders are irrelevant, I said "if you are committing yourself to use keywords".

     

    Yes, of course, there are other considerations, none of which have been mentioned by HarveyABC

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 5:39 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    dj_paige,

     

    I think it's worth realizing that the "folders & filenames don't matter" mindset is only applicable to some, not all users. - maybe best not to assume.

     

    Sorry if it seems I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but the limited folder/file-naming support in Lightroom is a major pet peeve of mine, and to many others for whom folders & filenames do matter.

     

    It may be that harveyabc soon realizes that folders and filenames really don't matter in his situation, but that doesn't change my point:  for some people it does matter, and having it be virtually impossible to move folders due to uncontrollable scrolling etc. can be a real problem.

     

    Adobe: give me methods in the SDK for folder/file moving/renaming and I'll never say another word about it - I promise.

     

    Reminder: in some cases, the need or desire for a preferred folder and file naming convention is independent of the extent to which the user does or does not use keywords.

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 5:32 AM   in reply to harveyabc

    harveyabc,

     

    If you are hell-bent on restructuring despite all, consider doing in chunks:

     

    * export a bunch of catalogs which have less branches.

    * after restructuring, merge subcatalogs into one.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 5:43 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    IMO the reality-check here is that while you CAN beneficially use meaningfully-structured folders - whatever that means to you - LR will still work fine anyway, even if your folder structure is not as you'd ideally like.

     

    So it's a good idea to first decide how you'd prefer to work in an ongoing way - for brand new imports, in particular. Perhaps the available LR functionality - such as auto-folder creation - may influence this.

     

    Then to assess both the value, and the effort, that would be involved in moving prior imports into line with that.

     

    Then to decide whether doing so will actually prove worthwhile for all, for some, or for none.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 6:09 AM   in reply to richardplondon

    richardplondon wrote:

     

    LR will still work fine anyway, even if your folder structure is not as you'd ideally like.

     

    Often constraints in Lightroom, come from outside Lightroom.

     

    I could tell you stories, but I've talked too much already .

     

    R

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    dj_paige,

     

    I think it's worth realizing that the "folders & filenames don't matter" mindset is only applicable to some, not all users. - maybe best not to assume.

    Yes, of course I agree, there are many ways of looking at things, and some people may need folders and filenames to be useful in searching/organizing. Some people don't need this (I don't), and the whole point is for HarveyABC to see that there are other ways of approaching things, which apparently he now sees. He has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each approach for himself and decide what the right path forward is. I initially provided him with advice on his specific question, how to re-arrange the folders on his list in the Folder Panel so that it would be more to his liking, along with advice that there are other ways to organize.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 8:20 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    All good dj_paige.

     

    Just remember: a person's reason for folder/file names may have nothing to do with Lightroom, e.g. searching or organizing... - could have to do with other software & services that are tied.

     

    PS - Although harveyabc started it, he is not the only person reading this thread .

     

    Cheers,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 11:17 AM   in reply to harveyabc

    i had about 900 folders.  way too many.  never had any problem finding any image.  i used folders, keyword, metadata.  never had a problem.  each time i took a trip to boston or took my granchildren out i generated another folder.  basically, it's like each time i left the house i would generate another folder.  don't ask me why.  just the way i did things.

    Nothing wrong with this at all.

    what i'm doing now is addressing the number of folders.  decreasing, organizing, etc.  if i had 6 boston folders, i now have either one boston folder with 6 subfolders or i just have one boston folder with all the boston pics in it.  i am making sure to keyword all images in a folder before transferring to a main folder.

    I do not recommend this. Leave the folders alone. If you need to find ALL Boston photos, you have keywords to help you find them all.

     

    I guess my problem with this thread is that you have said you are taking my advice. Now, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not consolidating folders/changing folder structure is a good thing to do; but it is most certainly not my advice.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 4:55 PM   in reply to harveyabc

    harveyabc wrote:

     

    sometimes i have referred to the folders outside of lr and that is why i would never abandon using and maintaining them.

     

    I hear ya. If Lightroom didn't allow me to keep folders in my preferred structure (with preferred folder/file-naming), I would never have even started using it in the first place. And the absence of such feature would be a definite deal breaker in any new software I might consider - and its the only feature I can say that about.

     

    Anyway, it's worth considering how much "organization" to do with folders and how much via metadata - sounds like you are on your way. Have fun...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    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