Participating Frequently

Question

Physical copy to another folder

Forum|Forum|7 years ago
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

copy

This topic has been closed for replies.

T

Tartarowitch

New Participant

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

Brainiac

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

Participating Frequently

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

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

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

Community Expert

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

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

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.

elie_dinur

Participating Frequently

I found a workaround,

Move favorite files to a subfolder, Export this folder as a Catalog, contain Original Negatives

I bet they were thinking "Copy Originals with their Settings"

orfeas76 wrote
.... to give my client a folder with selections....
I found a workaround,
Move favorite files to a subfolder, Export this folder as a Catalog, contain Original Negatives
I bet they were thinking "Copy Originals with their Settings"

So all your clients use Lightroom in an edition concurrent to, or later than, yours? And you want to empower them to edit your edits?

Not many people in your shoes.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded