Skip to main content
M
Mark Sirota
Known Participant
April 8, 2011
Open for Voting

P: Import Second Copy should be a true second copy

  • April 8, 2011
  • 32 replies
  • 863 views

I would like the Import process to be able to create two copies of my imported original files, with matching filenames/formats and folder structures, on two separate disks. Then in the case of disk failure, I could just rename the backup disk to the name of the primary, or point Lightroom to the backup instead of the primary, and I'd be up and running again in no time.

I cannot use the Second Copy function at Import time because the second copy is not organized by date. I have to do this manually.

For me, the current Second Copy functionality is not useful in any way. I am requesting new functionality, where the second copy happens after renaming, DNG conversion, and organization into folders, so that the second copy is identical to the main copy in every way except the path to the parent folder.

I'm sure many will suggest that you need backup software anyway and so this shouldn't be Lightroom's job, but I disagree -- in my case, these date-organized folders of originals are truly read-only. I don't convert to DNG, I don't write out XMP sidecars, and in fact I don't delete originals after Import, so these folders are truly never written to again after Import. If I could just create a second copy at Import time, my backup system would never need to be involved and I could mark my disks or folders as read-only immediately after Import.

(It would be extra-cool if Lightroom would set the file and folder permissions to read-only itself!)

    32 replies

    Show previous replies
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    August 29, 2011
    That is how Lightroom works now, *except* the second copy has also been renamed - but why would you not want the second copy to have the same base name as the first? I mean, I also like having the original file number in the name, just in case I had to recover from card. But as long as you have the file-number in the name, isn't it preferable to have the backup be named with the same base as the photo its backing up? Is it just so that Lightroom is working the same as Bridge, for consistency?

    UPDATE: Another difference is that the 2nd copy is always put in a subfolder - is that the other part that you could do without?
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    August 29, 2011
    That is how Lightroom works now, *except* the second copy has also been renamed - but why would you not want the second copy to have the same base name as the first? I mean, I also like having the original file number in the name, just in case I had to recover from card. But as long as you have the file-number in the name, isn't it preferable to have the backup be named with the same base as the photo its backing up? Is it just so that Lightroom is working the same as Bridge, for consistency?

    UPDATE: Another difference is that the 2nd copy is always put in a subfolder - is that the other part that you could do without?
    Flawless_Star15D5
    Flawless_Star15D5
    Participating Frequently
    August 29, 2011
    What I use/used in Bridge import was...

    !. First copy convert to DNG, place in specified folder, having changed the file name - but incorporated the original file number in the name for identification with original.

    2. Second copy left as RAW and placed in different folder, without changing the name.

    That is what I would like to do in Lightroom.

    Anthony.
    Flawless_Star15D5
    Flawless_Star15D5
    Participating Frequently
    August 29, 2011
    What I use/used in Bridge import was...

    !. First copy convert to DNG, place in specified folder, having changed the file name - but incorporated the original file number in the name for identification with original.

    2. Second copy left as RAW and placed in different folder, without changing the name.

    That is what I would like to do in Lightroom.

    Anthony.
    F
    FeedbackCommunityMember
    Inspiring
    May 17, 2011
    I'd be happy with just the ability to turn off the useless (to me anyway) "Imported on..." folder. If the only way to get this is to have the second copy be a duplicate of the primary folder structure, I could live with that. I can't live with the "Imported on..." folder and so use Nikon Transfer to copy the files and make the second copy.

    I have no need for Lightroom to be my backup/restore process. I already have that in hand. I just simply want to be able to create a second copy of the imported files and place them where I want them.
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    April 9, 2011
    I'm sure this feature would be good for some, but I'm *guessing* a minority, and I'm guessing backup-restoral is likely to come first, or instead. Which is why if I were you I'd start thinking about plan B too. If Lr had an import action, this copy syncing could easily be done using the import action, and since so many other niche post-import actions could be done as well, it seems more likely it might be implemented. - just guessing... I mean, yes: it would be simple enough to make 2nd or 3rd copies somewhere, but if stuff is deleted or moved - then the backups no longer match the catalog, which means you have a sortof half-baked solution or you need to add the match-up and sync logic - now its not so simple... On the other hand, the present backup solution is only 1/4 baked, so who knows...
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    April 9, 2011
    I'm sure this feature would be good for some, but I'm *guessing* a minority, and I'm guessing backup-restoral is likely to come first, or instead. Which is why if I were you I'd start thinking about plan B too. If Lr had an import action, this copy syncing could easily be done using the import action, and since so many other niche post-import actions could be done as well, it seems more likely it might be implemented. - just guessing... I mean, yes: it would be simple enough to make 2nd or 3rd copies somewhere, but if stuff is deleted or moved - then the backups no longer match the catalog, which means you have a sortof half-baked solution or you need to add the match-up and sync logic - now its not so simple... On the other hand, the present backup solution is only 1/4 baked, so who knows...
    F
    FeedbackCommunityMember
    Inspiring
    April 9, 2011
    I wouldn't mind the ability to do automatic restores, but that is a more complicated change (which can be implemented in tandem with Mark's suggestion). What Mark is asking for is fairly simple to implement, and I believe is the way that the independent file ingestors like Image Ingester operate. In my workflow, I create three identical copies of my photos at the outset and then there is no need for future backups because ~all data is handled by the catalogue

    (Actually, to refine that slightly (i) one archive copy is RAW and two are DNG, (ii) I do push down xmp data to the primary DNG and back that up to the second DNG from time to time, but it's not crucial, (iii) I do backup TIFFs created by/for Photoshop. But the general idea still holds. I don't change file names or folder structure because LR does not handle that well. Files that I would want to delete are given 0 stars and put in a special collection so if I really want to delete them in the future I could, but I don't think I'd have an easy way of deleting the RAW versions of them. So I don't mind LR restoring files intelligently, but I see that as a huge understaking.)
    john beardsworth
    Community Expert
    john beardsworthCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 9, 2011
    "As it stands, Lightroom supports making photo backups, but not restoring them, which seems to be the missing piece."

    Agreed. While I agree with the original request for exact copies, it is missing this important point. For instance, the second backup becomes next-to-useless if a user renames files in Lightroom (and after deleting duds), but then loses those files and needs to rely on the second backup.

    Making a restore function - or Find Missing Files - match metadata as well as simple filenames would be a big step forward.

    John
    john beardsworth
    Community Expert
    john beardsworthCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 9, 2011
    "As it stands, Lightroom supports making photo backups, but not restoring them, which seems to be the missing piece."

    Agreed. While I agree with the original request for exact copies, it is missing this important point. For instance, the second backup becomes next-to-useless if a user renames files in Lightroom (and after deleting duds), but then loses those files and needs to rely on the second backup.

    Making a restore function - or Find Missing Files - match metadata as well as simple filenames would be a big step forward.

    John
    Show more replies
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices