Add photos to multiple albums in LrC

[Tape99]

I hope someone out there can give me help.  Searching Adobe for help has been worthless for me!  I have my photos saved to my local HDD (Mac running Sonoma).  They have been titled and arranged in albums via LrC.  I have some photos I'd like to see in more than one album, but I am stuck.  Is this possible (thinking of Apple Photos) or does it require me to actually create a physical copy of the photo?

[kglad]

in the future, to find the best place to post your message, use the list here, https://community.adobe.com/

p.s. i don't think the adobe website, and forums in particular, are easy to navigate, so don't spend a lot of time searching that forum list. do your best and we'll move the post (like this one has already been moved) if it helps you get responses.

<"moved from cc desktop">

[dj_paige]

Your search may be failing because LrC does not have albums.

If you mean Collections and not Albums (is that what you mean?), drag the photo(s) into collection 1, then drag the photo(s) into collection 2.

Creating a 2nd physical copy should never be necessary in LrC.

[Tape99]

Yes, my terminology was off.  My photos are arranged in FOLDERS on my HDD.  

[dj_paige]

If you want the photo to be in multiple FOLDERS, this seems like a poor choice given the entire set of tools available in Lightroom Classic. Collections (or keywords) allow you to solve the problem, as I explained above.

I would like to understand the problem more, why are you trying to do this, what is the end benefit? Its likely other solutions would work better, and I could suggest other approaches if only I understood why you are doing this and what the end benefit is.

[Tape99]

When I first began using Lr, when it first came out, I began to store photos in dated folders so I could keep them separate and easily accessed, regardless of actual date of creation, etc. I had been using apple's first my photos and their way of organization explains why I wanted more than a simple library that pre-decided how photos were to be arranged.  Since then, my 35,000+ pics in a multitude of folders have been kept and stored in easily searched and located folders. Today, I have folders that contain pics of different categories  but there may be some pics that fit both folder categories and I just wanted the same pic in both folders. As I have been trying to find a solution, I realize the answer was to have (or also) organized photos in collections, which would allow me to do what I want to acomplish 

[dj_paige]

This sounds like a perfect use for keywords, you can apply many keywords to each photo. There's no need to have the photos in multiple folders. Nor is it really a good idea to put them in multiple folders in LrC, if it is even possible (and I don't think it is possible without serious drawbacks).

[richardplondon]

I would expect most people store photos in date-of-capture folders. One argument for this is that Lightroom Classic can easily file new imported photos directly into a date based system of folders, which are created and populated automatically. Arguments against a subject based system of folders include that LrC cannot help you automate this at import; plus the date of capture is known right from the start and then is never reconsidered; no image will ever want more than one of these! None of that is true for subject based organisation, which is why virtual methods such as Collections and keywords - or more powerfully still, those two working together - are better ways to state what the photo is (currently considered to be) about - and, to control how it may get used.

[Conrad_C]

I realize the answer was to have (or also) organized photos in collections, which would allow me to do what I want to acomplish 

By @Tape99

It sounds like you are already on the right track: Folders to store each single original file, and collections as virtual “playlists” that can be any combination of any number of instances of any files from any folders.

With that in mind, your original question as stated should not be a problem. Because collections are just lists and not actual copies, it is no problem to add one photo to as many collections as you like.

The usual way to add a photo to multiple collections is to just drag it to them. For example, if I have a collection set for a trip, and within that set is a collection for all photos from that trip (from multiple folders), another collection of trip photos to arrange as a slide show, another collection of different trip photos to arrange as a book, and so on, I can drag the same photo and drop it into the slide show collection, and then drop it into the book collection. The instances of that photo in each of the two collections will not be copies, they point back to the single original in its folder on the desktop.

By the way…this actually works exactly like Apple Photos, but with different names:

What Photos calls “albums” is what Lightroom Classic calls “collections.”

What Photos calls “folders” is what Lightroom Classic calls “collection sets.”

And…Apple Photos has no view that shows you where the files are in the folders on your Mac desktop, because it hides all photos you add to Apple Photos.* Because remember, what Photos calls “folders” are just virtual containers for virtual albums. But the Folders panel in Lightroom Classic does show you a view of the folders containing the photos on your actual desktop.

Simply dragging to collections works if you are OK with the same edits for each instance. If you want to create an instance of that photo with different edits (such as a different crop, or a black-and-white version), then you want to create a virtual copy instead. This actually saves space compared to Apple Photos, because the Duplicate command in Photos makes a real duplicate file of the original file (I figured this out while watching the hidden Apple Photos “originals” folder as I duplicated an image in Photos).

*The way Apple Photos manages and organizes images is about the same as how cloud Lightroom (not Classic) does. Both hide imported photos from the desktop, both call their virtual containers “albums,” and both call their hierarchical virtual container organizers “folders.”

[richardplondon]

Lightroom Classic has virtual organisation methods that do not require making physical copies.

Organising files by folders is quite limiting - like putting items into different boxes. A given item cannot sit in box A, grouped together with some other items, for one purpose - and at the same time sit in box B together with a different set of other items, for another purpose.

Lightroom Classic's "Collections" work more like making different listings of items, one for each purpose. A given item may currently show up in one listing, in many, or in none. Since it is only ever being virtually referred to by these listings, these cannot physically conflict with each other. And this is all independent of whichever real physical box the item may happen to be sitting in.

[GoldingD]

Deleted, others replied while I was tying, my reply is of no value.