LR 2.6 Start (again) from scratch?

[billp545]

Hi there,

I have an uncommonly mixed up, confusing collection of the 2-3 thousand photos I have taken with my Nikon D8' for the past 15 months. I was such a photography-misfit in the begining that I saved images in Piknik, Picasa 3, Flick'r, Elements 7 (where most still rest in the Organizer) and most recently Lightroom 2.6. Oh, and for the first 6-7 months I managed to completely botch the 'Folder system' as well, so finding anything is even more difficult than it should be.

To get better organized I have deleted/disabled everything except the Photoshop Elements, and Lightroom programs. I have FINALLY began shooting in RAW as well--and I like it much more than I expected to.

I know enough now to realize that Lightroom 2 is where I want to do the lion's share (95%) of my work, and that it behooves me to learn the program thoroughly, regardless of the difficulty.

The one thing I have done right so far photography-wise has been to get my best or favorite or most important photos printed through Shutterfly ($.'9 each!)--so if worse comes to worst I won't lose anything.

My Question: I am having trouble in Lightroom 2 with all the photos that I moved around in other programs, and I am having Connection, or Reconnecting Missing Files problems (there is a slew of ?-marks on most of the works listed on the Left Panel (although I'm pretty sure the images they refer to are in Elements 7).

*** So I want to delete everything that is in Lightroom 2 right now (the work will still be in the Live Windows Photo Gallery (Windows 7), and Elements 7) and start to work in earnest with Lightroom 2.6 with my next Import, probably next weekend. I'll be armed with the two books by Coalson, and Kelby--both look excellent--and I'll have the healthy mindset that comes about when starting over with a knowledge that THIS time you're going to get it right.

In case this is a VERY BAD move let me know; I am posting this to be certain that I won't be making my siruation even worse.

Thank you.

 

[Brad Snyder]

bill, welcome to the forums. I answered your same question over on the Flickr forum, with a couple of questions back to you. (Over there, I'm purple umbrella)

I'll repeat them here, because, I think in general, you'll get better advice (at least more consistent) advice here.

In general, what you propose is a bad move, however since it seems a large chunk of your catalog has gone walkabout anyway, most of the harm may already have been done.

What percentage of your Lr catalog files would you say are "misplaced"?

What percentage of your Lr catalog files have you made image adjustment or metadata changes to, that you'd like to keep?

 

[Kiwigeoff]

I agree with Brad here and would not suggest staring over at this point although it may well turn out the best option when you have responded. Tel us where all of your image files are located on the HD as well please.This will get sorted out, it may seem a lot of images tot you but it isn't really. I've shot 6''' this month and I don't do sports!!

 

[Victoria Bampton]

And FWIW, having a mixed up muddle is not that uncommon, so don't feel too bad!

So what had you actually done within LR? Have you edited any of the files? IF you were to start a new catalog, do you know what you'd lose?

 

[billp545]

Brad, Geoff, Victoria

Thank you for your advice. I have really thought this over today, and I came to the conclusion that 'starting Lightroom 2 from scratch' is--and I didn't think it at the time--is simply a cop-out.
For one thing, the lion's share of my work (6''' + images) is in Elements 7--and there are only about 2''' of the same images in Lightroom. So if it is possible, I'll try to straighten the LR 2 mess out--that will be my 'learning curve' for LR 2.

About 9'% of the lrcat is misplaced, i.e., 9 of 1' files have ?'s on them. I don't know if it is significant or not, but all of those same files are in Elements 7 WITHOUT the question marks, and yes I did work on them over there.

How many of my Lightroom 2 files would I like to keep? Well, all of them--but here's a sad little story.
This morning I was tinkering in LR 2 and a decided to work on a small 57-image folder, a small set from a big (for me) 3'' photo shoot in the Central Park Zoo. Every image had a question mark, but I managed to reconnect 17 images (all the monkeys and seals) with their originals--but wait! The ?'s on the penguins and the snow leopard didn't disappear--but where did the monkeys and seals go? Now a have a fille marked 4' that was 57 when I started out.

Anyway, if you can make any sense of this, I'll certainly listen. Indeed, instead of 'starting Lightroom 2 from scratch' my original plan, now I wonder about the possibility of moving everything (6''' images) out of Elements 7 into Lightroom 2 (or is that too ambitious or far-fetched).

Thank you again.

Bill Powers

 

[Brad Snyder]

It's not about moving the images from Elements to Lr. It's about Lr learning where the images are currently located on your harddrives. If you've moved the images around in great lumps, then it's easy enough to find them again, in great lumps. I'm getting the impression, though, that you (may) have, moved them around in retail sized, odd lots, which means they will all have to be re-located in the same pains taking fashion.

This may be moot, if you haven't devoted much effort to adjusting/developing the images in Lr, or organizing/keywording the images in Lr. In this case, you could simply start over with out losing much.

Indeed, it may be best, to just create a new Lr catalog, and judiciously start importing your images there, with the goal of abandoning your existing Lr catalog, when the new one's complete.

RGB filetypes (i.e. JPG, TIF, PSD) processed by Elements, or any other graphic software, should import cleanly to Lr, with all changes intact. Raw types processed in Elements, I don't actually know (don't have Elements available), but I presume you should be able to save the ACR adjustments in XMP, which would also import cleanly to Lr.

If this needs further clarification, just ask.

 

[billp545]

Brad,

Good news! I thought all my images were on the 'J' external drive with a couple hundred maybe left on the Hard Drive ('C') and that is what I was working with. I discovered yesterday that the Seagate External drive had several THOUSAND more images that I forgot about/gave up on (all sorted out nicely btw), and I figured out how to get them ALL into Lightroom 2.

The images are not riddled with ?'s, so now I have the weekend to really get Lightroom 2 organized. So ALL the pictures are on the Seagate/FreeAgent 32' GB external HD (1','''; a lot of them duplicates), and I have imported everyone of them into Lightroom 2.

Almost all the images in Lightroom are in specificly named 'Folders' (e.g. National Cathedral), but from what I read (Kelby, Coalson, Kent) I should set up my Catalog by sets of Collections--right? That is what I am doing now, and it seems as if the 'Folders' are permanent because I can't delete them after I get a matching Collection. For example I managed to make a Collection named "Vietnam Memorial" [under a 'D.C.' Collection Set] so then I have a Collection named "Vietnam Memorial", and a Folder named "Vietnam Memorial" that came with the Import. If I delete, or remove the VM from the Folders, the Collecton disappears as well--but I want to keep the VM Collection, and get rid of the VM Folder. Am I stuck with both? If so, it makes Lightrooom more cluttered than I expected.

Thank you

 

[dj_paige]

I think it is pointless to set up Lightroom Collections to match your folders on your disks. This is a duplication of effort that seems to have no value ... you can access the folders in the folder panel, and so a collection of the same name with the same photos is not adding value.

I understand you read from people that the best organization of your Lightroom Catalog is via collection sets. I have to disagree strongly with this advice. I recommend you organize your Lightroom photos via keywords. While the function of keywords and collections overlap somewhat, keywords give you capabilities that collections don't. For example, keywords can be shared with non-Lightroom applications and non-Lightroom users, while collections cannot. In the filter bar, you can search for items that have multiple keywords, but not for items that are in multiple collections.

The idea of "getting rid of the folder but keeping the collection" doesn't make sense, and perhaps you don't understand how Lightroom works. Your images must be stored somewhere, and in your case, they are stored in folders. Lightroom does not contain copies of your images, it contains pointers to your images, and thumbnails (or "previews"). So, for Lightroom to work, you cannot get rid of a folder that contains your images (cause that deletes the images and then Lightroom can't work).

 

[billp545]

Paige

Thanks for your response. After I 'discovered' the full cache of thousands of images yesterday morning, and moved them all onto the external HD, then imported them into LR 2--well, it was an energizing moment. I could FINALLY answer what images were where (something I could not do for the 15 months I've been at this) so I went direcltly to the LR books and they emphasize Collections--so I started building them right away and I'm still at it now.

I didn't realize, until now, that Collections are a toy-of-sorts (which they apparently are); but they DO WORK in organizing my images. I have already made Collection Sets for 'Museums' (National Gallery, the Metropolitan, Albright-Knox); 'Zoos' (Toronto, National (DC), Central Park, Buffalo) 'Cities', 'Churches', 'Specials' --and it works for me.

OK, my delete the Folders notion was wrong, so of course I will work them as well as I can. You emphasize keywords, but can Keywords lead me from the National Cathedral in DC, to St Ignatius Loyola church in NY, or the OLV Basilica in Buffalo? I don't think so, but when (if) I return to writing that's what I'll have to do.

It would be a mistake for me to abandon the Collection idea--I just have to work with Folders as well.

Thanks again.

 

[Brad Snyder]

Well, actually properly keyworded images could lead you to those specific search targets. The power there, would be the availability to set up Smart Collections to aggregate themed photos, automagically as you keyword.

Good news on finding the photos, stay with us here, and we'll help you grow with the process.

 

[dj_paige]

[quote author=billp545 link=topic=9'27.msg61141#msg61141 date=1264796699]
OK, my delete the Folders notion was wrong, so of course I will work them as well as I can. You emphasize keywords, but can Keywords lead me from the National Cathedral in DC, to St Ignatius Loyola church in NY, or the OLV Basilica in Buffalo? I don't think so, but when (if) I return to writing that's what I'll have to do.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean by "lead me from ...". Keywords are an organizing and search tool. Collections are an organizing and search tool. Any organizing and search you can do with collections, you can do with keywords; and as I pointed out in my earlier post, keywords have some advantages over collections.

[quote author=billp545 link=topic=9'27.msg61141#msg61141 date=1264796699]It would be a mistake for me to abandon the Collection idea--I just have to work with Folders as well.
[/quote]

I think its a mistake to simply duplicate the folder structure on your hard disk in Lightroom collections. It is unnecessary, a waste of time. You already have the folder panel to show you the folder hierarchy. How are you using Collections in a different way than your folder hierarchy?

 

[billp545]

Hi,

Unfortunately, the Folders section, while holding all of my images, is a real mess. The few folders that came in separately as their own entity, e.g., the Vietnam Memorial, or the Toronto Zoo I did merely duplicate into Collections--but those two were exceptions. Other folders have 5'' + images in them that might cover a brewpub, two churches, a set of seaguls, random urban shots--get the picture? Other folders have a handful of images (5, 9, 17 etc.) that are parts of a bigger projects, so I am not merely duplicating folders into collections (I wish that's all there was to it).

So I am tearing the folders down via Quick Collections THEN building them into collections--it's laborious, but it being winter in Buffalo makes it flatout enjoyable.

 

[dj_paige]

Thanks, I understand what you are doing better now.

I have done quite a bit of photography in Buffalo in the winter.