Physical copy to another folder

[orfeas76]

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

[elie_dinur]

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.

[richardplondon]

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.

[orfeas76]

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

[richardplondon]

I have no information about Adobe abandoning Bridge, but it is clear that the photo management industry as a whole is moving into a range of models and approaches, some of which depart from the familiar files-and-folders method.

And which therefore are not constrained by the many inherent (if ignored through famiarity) limitations of that.

It is true that LR allows you to move and rename files and folders, but this is a secondary matter organisationally. It makes no basic difference to the virtual management of these images WHAT folder they happen to be in, nor WHAT they happen to be called. Just so long as LR's location records correspond to the external reality, the virtual management persists regardless.

Something like: the government has the means of updating its own records, once duly informed, if you change address or name. Governments have even in some circumstances made people physically move to a different address or have dictated what names they could or could not have. But no government has the capacity to dictate that there should be created a brand new, different and separate copy of YOU. That option does not logically feature in the relationship between citizen and government.

And if a government did clone people as a tactic for classifying them, or even if it just assigned people a fresh citizenship number for the purposes of each fresh exercise, then this would have merely magnified its own organisational problem.

[Just Shoot Me]

Adobe isn't abandoning Bridge. It is still used by many for both Photoshop and other Adobe software programs.

Bridge is a FILE MANAGER that does show you every folder and file on your hard drives.

LR is a Cataloging program, a Database program, that only shows you folders and images that you have imported into the LR Database file, the Catalog file.

[Tartarowitch]

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]

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.

[dj_paige]

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?

You could Export and set the Image Format to original, which doesn't change the file at all.