Can you copy images to a new directory?

[jfriend]

I have a bunch of images that I would like to make significant edits to and for image management reasons I'd like the edited versions to NOT be in the same directory as the originals (so regular virtual copies are not ideal).

Ideally, I'd like to make virtual copies to a new directory. Is that possible? If that's not possible, is there a way to copy the images to a new directory within LR so I can make the edits in a new directory and not have the edited versions messing with my previous organization?

I've tried the usual suspects (right-click drag, hold Ctrl-key down when drag/drop) and I don't get any feedback that it's going to do a copy (the mouse cursor is supposed to change to a + sign). Any other way to do this in LR?

 

[Mark Sirota]

You could just copy the file using the operating system tools, then import the new copy (or synchronize the folder) and then sync the metadata from the old to the new.

But this seems like a rather odd request -- why does it matter what folder the original is in, and why won't a virtual copy work? Could you just make a collection rather than work in the folder?

 

[Denis Pagé]

What is the point of working the same image from different places in the system? Nice start for a potential mess...

 

[jfriend]

You could just copy the file using the operating system tools, then import the new copy (or synchronize the folder) and then sync the metadata from the old to the new.

But this seems like a rather odd request -- why does it matter what folder the original is in, and why won't a virtual copy work? Could you just make a collection rather than work in the folder?

It is not easy to copy these in the OS because the 77 images I want to copy are the results of a keyword query (they are the 77 images that contain a keyword). Further, these are RAW images with edits in LR already which aren't easy to view in the OS.

For sporting events, I use a named file/system directory to keep all the keepers in which I then export and upload to a series of web galleries.

I'd now like to pick some of those images out and use them for a completely different purpose which will require editing differently (much tighter crops) that have nothing to do with the original gallery. As such, I'd like to keep the contents of the file system directory to correspond to what I put up in the web gallery for that event. And, I'd like to not have to remember to filter those images just to get the right view.

So, I'd like to take a subset of these images somewhere else to work on them and keep them in a different logically named directory for this other purpose.

The advantage of separating them out into a new directory is that I only have to do that separation once and then everytime I look at either directory in LR, I'm seeing exactly the images I want for that purpose without having to remember to do the right filter to see the right images (something I will never remember 3 months from now).

If I use virtual copies, then every single time I work in the original directory, I'm going to have to set up one of a couple filters just to get the view I want. Much easier to separate them in the file system once and not have to remember to filter.

Collections don't seem to help either because while it's easy to get the collection for the new copies to be separately viewable, the original directory has both originals and virtual copies so I still would have to filter that just to get the view I want.

The ideal scenario would be to be able to do virtual copies to a new directory, but apparently that is not possible so I'm just trying to do regular copies to a directory.

 

[dj_paige]

If you want to crop (or edit) a photo differently than a previous edit, you use a Virtual Copy in Lightroom.

If you want to keep together a set of different images (which may be Virtual Copies), you use a Collection in Lightroom instead of making a new set of files residing on your hard disk.

Then, to upload somewhere, you select the collection and File->Export to a the temporary directory. Your virtual copies are now temporary actual copies, separate and distinct from the originals, for you to do whatever you'd like with them. Once completed, you can delete temporary directory, as you can always regenerate it from the Collection.

Based upon the above paragraph, I cannot understand your statement: "Collections don't seem to help either because while it's easy to get the collection for the new copies to be separately viewable, the original directory has both originals and virtual copies so I still would have to filter that just to get the view I want."

If you mix Lightroom tools and OS tools, you are, as Denis points out, asking for a big mess. You need to think of doing your entire workflow with Lightroom tools.

 

[Denis Pagé]

...The ideal scenario would be to be able to do virtual copies to a new directory, but apparently that is not possible so I'm just trying to do regular copies to a directory.

OK I see what you mean.

This ideal scenario is easy in Lightroom. Just think of Collections as directories. You can have Collection sets containing Collections like directories containing subdirectories. To have different treatments in each Collection as a directory, when you have you selects, rather than ask to make virtual copies, just ask to create a collection from it with the + sign beside Collections in the left panel and be sure to put a checkmark beside "Make virtual copies" in the "Create Collection" dialog box. Repeat for each different similar set you want.

When it comes the time to have the JPEGs for web export, it is only then that you will create a real directory structure.

 

[jfriend]

OK I see what you mean.

This ideal scenario is easy in Lightroom. Just think of Collections as directories. You can have Collection sets containing Collections like directories containing subdirectories. To have different treatments in each Collection as a directory, when you have you selects, rather than ask to make virtual copies, just ask to create a collection from it with the + sign beside Collections in the left panel and be sure to put a checkmark beside "Make virtual copies" in the "Create Collection" dialog box. Repeat for each different similar set you want.

When it comes the time to have the JPEGs for web export, it is only then that you will create a real directory structure.

That works fine if you keep all of your org structure in collections and create a collection for every shoot. I don't. I use the file system as the default "collection" for a given event and >95% of the time it works great for that so that saves me time. I have 6 years of shoots organized that way (many of them from before LR even existed). As such, the file system hierarchy is the first way I go find things. That's why I was looking for a way to solve this using file system directories. Another neat idea would be to let me place a collection in the file sytem view so one can see collections and directories in the same hierarchy in the library rather than in completely separate hiearchies. Then one could use the best tool for the job without forcing you to make collections for everything or forcing you to look for things in two separate hierarchies.

To add to that, any LR query that spans the entire catalog is 3-1' times slower than picking a directory and viewing just those images.

 

[dj_paige]

That works fine if you keep all of your org structure in collections and create a collection for every shoot.

There is no reason why what Denis suggests requires you to create a collection for every shoot. You can get away with creating collections only when you need them.

I don't. I use the file system as the default "collection" for a given event and >95% of the time it works great for that so that saves me time. I have 6 years of shoots organized that way (many of them from before LR even existed). As such, the file system hierarchy is the first way I go find things.

Again, I recommend that if you are using Lightroom, you make full use of its capabilities, and the best way to do that is to use Lightroom for all of your Organizing. A method that forces you to use the operating system for some organizational methods and Lightroom for other organization methods will be inefficient and frustrating.

That's why I was looking for a way to solve this using file system directories. Another neat idea would be to let me place a collection in the file sytem view so one can see collections and directories in the same hierarchy in the library rather than in completely separate hiearchies. Then one could use the best tool for the job without forcing you to make collections for everything or forcing you to look for things in two separate hierarchies.

To add to that, any LR query that spans the entire catalog is 3-1' times slower than picking a directory and viewing just those images.

As my twin brother Denis and I have stated, Lightroom collections and virtual copies and exports seem to meet the needs you have stated — except for the part that you continue to insist of using file system directories in your solution, and that's certainly your decision to make, but then there seems to be no easy way to incorporate using file system directories into your particular Lightroom workflow.

I have said in other places that Lightroom forces you to think differently about everything. I have even gone so far as to state the radical idea that Lightroom users need to throw out and abandon everything they know about using folder systems as organizational tools. I recommend that here as well.

 

[jfriend]

There is no reason why what Denis suggests requires you to create a collection for every shoot. You can get away with creating collections only when you need them.

I probably am not explaining my situation very well. If you don't create a collection for every shoot and you don't use file system directories (as viewed in LR) for keeping track of a shoot, then what tool are you using in LR for identifying the photos from a particular shoot?

 

[Denis Pagé]

I probably am not explaining my situation very well. If you don't create a collection for every shoot and you don't use file system directories (as viewed in LR) for keeping track of a shoot, then what tool are you using in LR for identifying the photos from a particular shoot?

Keywording

 

[jfriend]

Keywording

With nearly 1'',''' images in my catalog, I find that global keyword searches across the whole catalog are not very fast even though I have a pretty fast computer (quad-core, lots of RAM, fast disk, fast bus). Viewing images in a single directory, on the other hand is quite fast so that's my preferred way to work on a shoot. I'm not saying others should follow this path, just that that's why I do it this way.

 

[dj_paige]

Have you optimized your catalog lately? This will help it run faster.

Edit->Catalog Settings->General, click "Relaunch and Optimize"

 

[jfriend]

Have you optimized your catalog lately? This will help it run faster.

Edit->Catalog Settings->General, click "Relaunch and Optimize"

Yes, I have - thanks.