Skip to main content
O
orfeas76
Participating Frequently
March 7, 2018
Question

Physical copy to another folder

  • March 7, 2018
  • 4 replies
  • 7220 views

Can't believe that still "Copy" instead of "move" files doesn't exist.

No, Virtual Copies are not the answer, the are glued to each other and I can't separate them.

I open the File Explorer, Copy the files, and then Sync settings One by One just to give my client a folder with selections.

Please make our life easier

    This topic has been closed for replies.

    4 replies

    T
    Tartarowitch
    New Participant
    July 28, 2018

    I have the same problem and can not believe that LR does not have such a simple function as copying.

    I have PS files on different hard drives. In LR, I can summarize this wonderful and show. I want to merge a selection and compilation in LR from different hard drives to a USB stick. The export function is eliminated because it reduces the PSD files when exporting to the background level. But I do not want to move the files, but leave them where they are. Is there actually such a simple function as copying not in LR?

    Just Shoot Me
    Just Shoot Me
    Brainiac
    July 28, 2018

    Tartarowitch  wrote

    I have the same problem and can not believe that LR does not have such a simple function as copying.

    I have PS files on different hard drives. In LR, I can summarize this wonderful and show. I want to merge a selection and compilation in LR from different hard drives to a USB stick. The export function is eliminated because it reduces the PSD files when exporting to the background level. But I do not want to move the files, but leave them where they are. Is there actually such a simple function as copying not in LR?

    As stated many times in this thread, and other threads, LR is NOT a File Manager. LR is a Database program. If you had a Database for the work you do with client names, addresses, phone numbers and whatever would you want that Database program you use for viewing, editing and adding entries into the database to be able to COPY a complete record so you end up with 2 copies of the exact same data? I don't think so.

    elie_dinur
    elie_dinur
    Participating Frequently
    March 7, 2018

    Export as DNG opposes to the Non-Destructive editing of LR. The RAW is there, it doesn't need to be recreated as another format.

    The advantage of DNG is that it can have an internal XMP, thus avoiding the chance of the original Raw being separated from a sidecar XMP and it can be opened in either LR or PS/ACR without the catalog but with all the edits. Much  better for sending Raw + image editing to a second editor.

    R
    richardplondon
    Community Expert
    March 7, 2018

    The advantage of DNG is that it can have an internal XMP, thus avoiding the chance of the original Raw being separated from a sidecar XMP and it can be opened in either LR or PS/ACR without the catalog but with all the edits.

    Those observations expose the disadvantage of DNG, too (smile).

    To the OP: Adobe offers two separate solutions for managing a library of photos, addressing two distinct philosophies.

    Bridge + PS is the "file-centric" method (assisted by ACR). By "file-centric" I mean, whereby it might make intuitive sense to you to group some images for a given purpose, by making physical duplicates of the files into a special physical folder. That is a very common way of thinking, but not the sole possible way of thinking.

    Lightroom (+ PS optionally) is the non-file-centric alternative. It is explicitly designed to satisfy those of the other persuasion, who (perhaps) see only unnecessary downsides in such duplication.

    To require LR to include the complete gamut of file-centric methods, would be IMO as unrealistic as expecting a vegetarian restaurant to include a full meat and fish menu.

    A vegetarian restaurant's clientele self-selects: these people are never disappointed that they cannot order a steak, and don't think it would be a better vegetarian restaurant if they could. Rather, they go there because the non-meat dishes will be far more expert and various - less of an afterthought - than they ever would be in (say) a steak restaurant.

    And many of Lightroom's best synergies and efficiencies arise precisely from its usage of a non-file-centric, virtual library.

      O
      orfeas76Author
      Participating Frequently
      March 7, 2018

      richardplondon​ the way I see this is:

      Adobe wants us to abandon Bridge and use LR instead as the core of our Photography Library.

      I think Bridge is phasing out.

      Also many things inside LR remind a Filesystem: Move files, Make Subfolders, Rename files etc.

      If it was other way around Renaming Files is also bit of old-fashioned. It should make Virtual Names with links to Originals, right?

      From day1 everybody was astounded by the innovation of this software, leaving raws intact and writing all settings in text.

      But nowadays, the catalogs are huge, millions of photos, ofcourse we have to use dividing and archiving.

      A simple "Ctrl+move file=Copy" would be enough.

      I assume they want to welcome more people into the magic of Virtual files, collections and tags.

      But mistakes are easier when working with links to files and not files.

      My (digital) life is very complicated. I want to make it straight-forward

      JohanElzenga
      JohanElzenga
      Community Expert
      March 7, 2018

      orfeas76  wrote

      Can't believe that still "Copy" instead of "move" files doesn't exist.

      No, Virtual Copies are not the answer, the are glued to each other and I can't separate them.

      I open the File Explorer, Copy the files, and then Sync settings One by One just to give my client a folder with selections.

      Please make our life easier

      If you want to give your client a selection of images, then I assume you want him to have edited images, not unedited raw files. That means that making a physical copy is not the way to do this. You have to export the images you want to give to your client. And if you want to make this folder with copies for yourself, then you can use virtual copies. The only thing you need to do to 'separate' these virtual copies is to use 'virtual folders' aka collections rather than folders to organise this.

      -- Johan W. Elzenga
      D
      dj_paige
      Brainiac
      March 7, 2018

      You could export the photos to another location.

      I think you misunderstand the value of virtual copies. They are the exact answer to your problems, you can put them in a separate collection (not folder) and then you have separated a copy for your clients.

      There are many many ways in Lightroom to indicate that a group of photos is designated for a specific client.

      O
      orfeas76Author
      Participating Frequently
      March 7, 2018

      Export as DNG opposes to the Non-Destructive editing of LR. The RAW is there, it doesn't need to be recreated as another format.

      Also Collections are a lot confusing. Outside LR they don't exist.

      Here is my problem:

      I have thousands of folders (each one with a separate LRCatalog in it). That's my Archive.

      I also have the Master Catalog where I work, I import and export images.

      Well, I'd like to import and hold my favorite images from Archive Folders into Master Catalog and play with them

      without having to touch the original folder. I consider it dangerous.

      JohanElzenga
      JohanElzenga
      Community Expert
      March 7, 2018

      I believe the problem is that you use Lightroom in a way it was not designed for. The idea behind Lightroom is that you use a single catalog (or perhaps a few), but certainly not thousands of folders with a catalog in each of them. Lightroom does not touch the original images, so there is no danger in using a single catalog with a single image archive, but obviously you need to make backups of both the catalog (can be done by Lightroom on quit) and your images (that you need to do yourself).

      Of course you are free to use Lightroom any way you want to and in ways it was not designed for, but it does mean you will sometimes find that you would like to have an option that is not available. Making physical copies is an example. The whole idea of Lightroom is that you don't make physical copies, but use things like virtual copies, collections and smart collections to manage your images. Again: you don't have to do this if you don't want to, but that explains why creating physical copies is not a feature in Lightroom and probably never will be.

      -- Johan W. Elzenga
      Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
      Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices