"I don't know if it ok to piggyback onto an old thread, but I'm also wanting to do an incremental backup in Elements 14 for the first time. My assumption is that the nature of an incremental backup is is that you would keep the (original) Full backup and subsequent incremental backups in the same folder. This seems counterintuitive and tedious to have to create a new backup folder every time I want to backup this catalog. It seems the point of an incremental backup is to streamline the process and, for example, just add these new 25 photos to the cumulative backup file. So I too was scratching my head, first when asked if I wanted to overwrite the backup file already in this folder (no, I want to add to it), second when chosing the location of the previous backup file and being told "You may not specify the location of the previous backup as the new backup location". Really? A formerly poplular program for full computer backup, Acronis, always amended incremental backups automatically to the same backup folder. Somehow the ease and functionality of this incremental backup does not seem up to Adobe's reputation."
Forget about incremental backups from the Organizer.
1 - You hope to save time and you won't
2 - You won't be able to restore since you don't understand how that works
The very old backup feature in the organizer (we are at version 18...) is rather unique in its principle. Did you notice that Lightroom does not backup your files, only the catalogs? The Organizer stores a renamed copy of all media files in a single flat folder together with the contents of the catalog (itself a folder with a special subfolders structure). To be able to restore all the files with the same hierarchical folder tree on ANY OTHER computer, disk or master folder, there is a backup.tly file to store that structure. This enables the restored catalog to point to the new destination on any new drive without any disconnected file. That's not the case with Lightroom: your restored files (from Acronis or similar) are all shown as disconnected and you have to 'reconnect' them. LR is good at that task if you have restored on exactly the same structure; it takes care of the change of the drive. The organizer is not good at reconnecting missing files. That's the main critique you can find about this old feature. Even if it were improved, that would mean that typical Organizer users would have to be able to understand how to store their media folder tree like in Lightroom...
Now, you can see that restoring on the same folder is sheer nonsense. Restoring in indivitual backup folders under a common master folder would be a good idea.
The incremental process in the organizer is also unique. It's smart in one way, because you can restore any stage of the incremental backups if you want. It implies keeping a copy of the current catalog folder database (renamed catalog.pseXXdb) with all its accessory components in EACH incremental backup. How would you do that in a single folder? The restore process is counter intuitive in that it compares the full catalog stored in last (or selected) incremental folder with each of the LAST incremental backups and down until reaching the oldest one. This insures that there is no unneeded duplication or overwriting: all the newest files are restored first, then the just previous one and so on until all files in the latest catalog have been restored.
Practical advice: only use full organizer backups. Not a problem if you have enough disk space, which is absolutely necessary if you care about safety; just do regular backups at regular intervals.
If like me, you also want a faster solution, use another incremental backup solution like Acronis (I do...) I also use Microsoft SyncToy after each session. If my original computer crashes or is stolen, I can restore from the backup to a not too old stage, and then run the other restore system. I'll only have to update the catalog for the newest files.
Now,
7
Replies
AdChoices