My turn to ask about re-organizing directory structures including keywording etc

[Doug B]

I recently installed Lightroom fresh because of another fresh install of Snow Leopard, so I figured I'd take the opportunity to change my work habits and try to incorporate using import folders with dates and also try as hard as I can to tag things with keywords and such.

I know this has been covered many times over, but I couldn't find the exact scenario which I'm facing so here we go:

First, the way I have been working thus far is that I'll go out and shoot random things. Though I have been saving up to purchase some lighting gear, I'm not quite there yet. So nothing I've done really constitutes a professional shoot. It's all been varied subject matter, and I spend so much time shooting, that, it's hard to cull images right away. I eventually ended up with a folder named "test" for every image that needs to be gone over and have things either deleted, or moved to a different and appropriate folder.

I've always used categories for my folders, even back to my Windows and Linux days. It's what I got used to. You can see how this works in my screen shot. Now however, I have a bit of a problem. I want to try and get rid of the test folder method, and simply have Lightroom create folders with dates on them. And if I do happen to shoot a specific subject, I can add that description to the folder before the date (or maybe after as a sub folder).

But here's where I think the problem is. I already have over 5k images in the test folder, not to mention the other sub folders with their respective images. Is it possible to have Lightroom read the EXIF data from all images, and have it create folders, then have it move images with like-dates to those newly created folders ? The folders of course, would be listed as the date the images were taken.

If not, what do you guys suggest I do at this point ? Am I making this more complicated than it should be ? I'm just not sure of where to start again at this point. And I really want my new LR catalog to be orderly, and for the folder hierarchy to make sense to me.

So, where should I start with the existing folders before I import everything again ?

Thanks !

Doug

 

[dj_paige]

First ... get it out of your mind that folders will be used as organizational tools. Folders are not organization tools any more. Furthermore, get it out of your mind, don't even think about it, that you are going to look at or look in your folders ever again. Your folder hierarchy doesn't have to be orderly; you will use Lightroom tools to make your photographs orderly and easy to find. Working on folders from now on is an inefficient use of your time.

Second ... leave your photos exactly where they are, and do not even think about moving them from folder to folder, or renaming folders. Just leave them where they are.

Third ... begin a process of keywording everything, and setting up appropriate collections, if you so desire. Keywords, metadata and collections are your organizational tools now. If you still want to use the idea of a test folder to put things that you haven't categorized, create a test keyword, or just leave the photo un-keyworded (you can search for photos that have no keywords). In the future, when you want to find photos, you search in Lightroom. The search capabilities in Lightroom are much more powerful than anything you could come up with using Windows or Mac folders.

Finally ... commit yourself to keywording and adding metadata to your photos religiously, and relatively soon after capture.

Yes, I know this takes work, but your efforts will be rewarded, and your efforts will be rewarded much more than if you spend the time working on cleaning up and straightening out your folders.

 

[Doug B]

As much as I'd like to simply say, "ok, no problem" there is at least one factor preventing me from thinking this way. First and most importantly is that, if I decide to stop using Lightroom anytime down the road, I'll then have to deal with the immediate problem of having photo's tossed here, there and everywhere except for in a logical place.

At the very least, if I was using different software which was reliant upon reading folder structures (like a browser) having things in folders by date, would alleviate some of the mess. Secondly, I have seen other people use Lightroom to create folder structures with either dates or specific names, so I don't see why this is a taboo thing to ask for.

I'm not saying that being lazy and not tagging things is right, but at the same time, it might be a lot easier having a pre-defined folder with the date and a name for the shoot you just did so that you can refer to it later or burn the folder to a disc for a client.

Surely I'm not the only person here who thinks that keeping every photo in one bulk folder without sub folders is too messy ?

Doug

 

[Brad Snyder]

I'd comment on Paige's advice thusly:

Paige's advice is fundamentally quite good, but recognize that he seems to be part of the few that can work completely and comfortably without consideration to the underlying folder organization. I'd have to say for myself, and for many workflows that I'm familiar with, a lot of folks just get 'itchy' when their photos aren't in some kind of folder structure. I presume that's because we're all familiar with that storage metaphor, and we've been inured to it by years of working in rudimentary computer operating systems.

So, it's likely that you're going to end up somewhere in between. Some sort of folder structure, some degree of organization via keywords and other metadata within Lr. It's up to you to do the cost/benefit analysis. How much work invested in setup and maintenance versus the return in productivity?

A very common organizational structure is hard-drive folders organized by capture date, with the remainder of the organization handled with Lr's internal tools. Lr can help with that to some extent. If you choose one of the Import and Copy/Move options, Lr can auto-create the dated folder structure for you.

 

[Doug B]

[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=858'.msg57996#msg57996 date=126'2'4424]
I'd comment on Paige's advice thusly:

Paige's advice is fundamentally quite good, but recognize that he seems to be part of the few that can work completely and comfortably without consideration to the underlying folder organization. I'd have to say for myself, and for many workflows that I'm familiar with, a lot of folks just get 'itchy' when their photos aren't in some kind of folder structure. I presume that's because we're all familiar with that storage metaphor, and we've been inured to it by years of working in rudimentary computer operating systems.

So, it's likely that you're going to end up somewhere in between. Some sort of folder structure, some degree of organization via keywords and other metadata within Lr. It's up to you to do the cost/benefit analysis. How much work invested in setup and maintenance versus the return in productivity?

A very common organizational structure is hard-drive folders organized by capture date, with the remainder of the organization handled with Lr's internal tools. Lr can help with that to some extent. If you choose one of the Import and Copy/Move options, Lr can auto-create the dated folder structure for you.
[/quote]

Exactly what I'm talking about. But as noted above, it's not just because I'm used to doing things that way. It's more a case of I'm anal retentive and if I stop using Lightroom, I'll have photos lumped into one folder with no order whatsoever. That would be harsh. I like the idea of LR handling the folders by capture date, and then being able to actually put different segments of that date into specific order. After all, I might do two or three shoots, each for a different client in one day, so it would be better to organize a lump sum of photos first, rather than have to tag them later just to differentiate each shoot.

I've got Martin Evening's LR2 book, so hopefully I'll find some good ideas to work with. I know that some photographers make session folders before a shoot, and that is an option, but I'm not sure about the details for such a thing.

Doug

 

[Replytoken]

Doug,

Paige is correct in that it is best to organize your photos within LR. Keywording and or categories are really a good way to get a handle on your subject matter. Having said that, I personally also like my images in a chronological folder sysatem for purposes of backup/migration/restoration. So, might I suggest that you consider creating a new catalog and folder structure, but create the folder structure based on dates, not subject matter? Let LR do what it does best - categorize and keyword.

--Ken

P.S. And it seems that Brad is a faster typist than me!

 

[dj_paige]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg57994#msg57994 date=126'2'4338]
As much as I'd like to simply say, "ok, no problem" there is at least one factor preventing me from thinking this way. First and most importantly is that, if I decide to stop using Lightroom anytime down the road, I'll then have to deal with the immediate problem of having photo's tossed here, there and everywhere except for in a logical place.

At the very least, if I was using different software which was reliant upon reading folder structures (like a browser) having things in folders by date, would alleviate some of the mess. Secondly, I have seen other people use Lightroom to create folder structures with either dates or specific names, so I don't see why this is a taboo thing to ask for.

I'm not saying that being lazy and not tagging things is right, but at the same time, it might be a lot easier having a pre-defined folder with the date and a name for the shoot you just did so that you can refer to it later or burn the folder to a disc for a client.

Surely I'm not the only person here who thinks that keeping every photo in one bulk folder without sub folders is too messy ?

Doug
[/quote]

I never suggested putting all your photos into one folder. Using Lightroom default import settings, the photos go into folders by capture date. Great. Do it that way, works for me. That's what I do.

And after import, I don't look at folders again. Folders are not an organizing tool! Folders are simply storage locations. It is not an efficient use of my time to worry about folder structure, because I have more powerful tools in Lightroom.

At some point, if you stop using Lightroom, your keywords and metadata are still available to be read by any other program, provided you have Lightroom write the keywords and metadata to the photos (or to the .xmp files if you use Raw). So, at some point in the future, you stop using Lightroom and start using Application X, all of your keywords and metadata are preserved.

 

[Doug B]

Ok, I'm totally down with the creation of folder structures based upon date thing. No Problem there. As of right now, I only have the initial, standard catalog which is created upon installing LR, so it's empty. I haven't imported anything yet.

But what about my current folders which reside on my external HD ? (everything does. I keep nothing on my internal HD on the MacBook Pro)
How would you guys handle importing those things ? I mean, I can only start keywording things once they're in LR, so it would make sense to have LR (if it's possible) make folders based upon date for all of those photos and put them in there. No ?

Guess I'm coming off as being extremely dense. Sorry.

Doug

 

[clee01l]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58''3#msg58''3 date=126'2'94'7]
But what about my current folders which reside on my external HD ? (everything does. I keep nothing on my internal HD on the MacBook Pro)
How would you guys handle importing those things ? I mean, I can only start keywording things once they're in LR, so it would make sense to have LR (if it's possible) make folders based upon date for all of those photos and put them in there. No ? [/quote]I would not reimport these if you have development settings applied. Instead I would (and did BTW) create the same folder structure that LR would on import. Then using the metadata filter on all Phorographs, I would select fiage by date and drag these to the newly created date named folders.

 

[dj_paige]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58''3#msg58''3 date=126'2'94'7]
Ok, I'm totally down with the creation of folder structures based upon date thing. No Problem there. As of right now, I only have the initial, standard catalog which is created upon installing LR, so it's empty. I haven't imported anything yet.

But what about my current folders which reside on my external HD ? (everything does. I keep nothing on my internal HD on the MacBook Pro)
How would you guys handle importing those things ? I mean, I can only start keywording things once they're in LR, so it would make sense to have LR (if it's possible) make folders based upon date for all of those photo's and put them in there. No ?
[/quote]

No

Leave your photos right where they are. Do not even think about re-organizing the existing folders in any way shape or form. Not an efficient use of your time.

Let Lightroom be your organizing tool. Let keywords and metadata and collections be your organizing tools. They are much more powerful than anything you can do by moving or renaming folders.

If, for some reason, you want to see all photos taken in January 2''8, even though you have the same folder structure as you have now because you followed my instructions not to change your existing folder structure, Lightroom can do that search. Lightroom can do it, because Lightroom reads the capture date from your photos and stores it in the Lightroom database. You gain nothing by moving your existing (not future) photos into folders by date.

So ... bottom line ... your existing folders stay exactly as they are now, your new photos go into folders by capture date ... and this inconsistency doesn't matter because you are not going to search for photos in your folders. You are going to search in Lightroom, with keywords and metadata and collections, and not folders. If you contemplate some future situation where you no longer use Lightroom, have Lightroom automatically write your keywords and metadata to the photos .xmp.

 

[Brad Snyder]

Oops, not deliberately contradicting Paige, we were simul-posting. His way is a good choice as well. Just depends on your degree of 'anal-tudeness'.

If you haven't yet imported to Lr, as you say, it's simply a matter of importing the images from your existing hard-drive folders, and electing to either Copy or Move the files to a new location during the Import process, and choosing the appropriate Organize by date option. The images will be sorted into a capture date based folder tree.

You would choose either Copy or Move, based on whether you had room for the multiple in-process files on your hard-drive, and your degree of confidence in your backups. Generally I would opt to Copy, and only remove the original source files once I was sure everything worked. The date sorting options are a bit confusing, generally, the options with backslashes create a nested set of folders, such as year/month/day, so that there would be a parent 2''9, with multiple month subfolders, wtih each month holding multiple day subfolders. The options with dashes, just create one layer of subfolders, named in that displayed format.

Personally, I would find a nice small subset of my images, and experiment a bit, using the Copy and Import option. That will leave your originals undisturbed, and will give you a chance to get your feet wet, without jumping into the deep-end, until you get comfortable with all the options there. That way it's simple enough to remove the images from Lr and delete the new copies from disk, and try another naming system. Note that you can rename the files in this process as well, with some intelligent tokens, which may provide added value.

Specific questions? Just ask.

 

[Doug B]

Good stuff guys, thanks for the suggestions. I will take them all into consideration as I begin to test things out with (as suggested) a small subset of photos. I'll let you all know what happens !

Thanks so much for being patient with me.

Doug

 

[dj_paige]

Since I never use the option to import and move/copy photos, I simply forget it exists. Brad's suggestion is fine, as I don't have any problem with having the computer doing all the work. For a while, I thought the original poster was thinking about manually re-doing his existing folders, and to my mind this would be an extreme waste of time.

Still, there is a drawback to Brad's suggestion: it continues to let the user think in terms of folders. My suggestion is to simply stop thinking about folders, right now, today, immediately; not after you import things by date. Thought processes are important, especially for beginning Lightroom users, and to use Lightroom in its most efficient way, you need to think in very different ways.

 

[Doug B]

[quote author=dj_paige link=topic=858'.msg58'24#msg58'24 date=126'228242]
Since I never use the option to import and move/copy photos, I simply forget it exists. Brad's suggestion is fine, as I don't have any problem with having the computer doing all the work. For a while, I thought the original poster was thinking about manually re-doing his existing folders, and to my mind this would be an extreme waste of time.

Still, there is a drawback to Brad's suggestion: it continues to let the user think in terms of folders. My suggestion is to simply stop thinking about folders, right now, today, immediately; not after you import things by date. Thought processes are important, especially for beginning Lightroom users, and to use Lightroom in its most efficient way, you need to think in very different ways.
[/quote]

You're right, manually changing the file structure's would be a huge waste of time and energy. Not what I was intending to do. I Do however, want LR to do all the grunt work in that area.

I'm working with two different issues here. One issue is the existing photo's which are in my pre-made folders on the external HD. The other issue is how to import new photos from my CF cards TO the external HD, which is where all my photos will ultimately reside.

Now, I started testing import methods using "import photos from disk" and took a folder of jpg's (the folder is labeled with my wife's name, which in its self is in a folder named "us") and hit import. I already did this last night with a different folder which is comprised of cat photos.

I selected the "organize by date" option, with the forward slash option so that there can be a parent directory for each year. (Look at the first screen shot) However, I'm seeing a problem with this set up right off the bat. I know dj_paige has told me several times over to forget about folder directories and such, but here's the thing:

Even though I now have dates for everything, a lot of the content thus far isn't necessarily specific. So I will have different types of subject matter for every date. Things will get intermingled. Yes, I'll tag things, but I really don't see how this is any more time efficient than knowing exactly where certain kinds of photos are because they're in a labeled folder. In fact, I think it's a crazy time consuming thing which doesn't take care of the issue 1''%. Why you ask ? Here's why:

While I can tag photo's until my fingers fall off, this doesn't account for one very important factor. Perhaps I don't recall how I tagged an event or thing ? Suppose that I don't even remember certain shoots and have no way of knowing what tags and keywords I'd use in order to narrow down the selections which would help me find something very specific ? With folder names, at least I'd know to look in something like an "animals" folder so that I might find photos of the family dog etc..

Or what if it was an animal, but it was on an safari shoot ? So it would help to have the date folder, actually be a subfolder within a folder. Here's what I think would be ideal:

Year>Event/Subject>Month>Day

Being able to insert the subject matter or event in between the date somewhere would be great. But I don't see this option. I haven't tried looking for it when importing from a CF card yet, but don't see why this wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably be able to get this done more quickly if I weren't in constant pain from this stupid finger infection I got. It's really distracting.

Doug

 

[dj_paige]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58'39#msg58'39 date=126'27575']
While I can tag photo's until my fingers fall off, this doesn't account for one very important factor. Perhaps I don't recall how I tagged an event or thing ? Suppose that I don't even remember certain shoots and have no way of knowing what tags and keywords I'd use in order to narrow down the selections which would help me find something very specific ? With folder names, at least I'd know to look in something like an "animals" folder so that I might find photos of the family dog etc..
[/quote]

Doug ... the whole point of tagging is to make keywords meaningful to you. And the best way to do that is to use keywords that describe the content of the photo. If you yourself can't remember the keywords you used ... if you yourself can't remember the content of the photo, then no filing system is going to work. None. Give up.

Now, I think you are completely capable of remembering the keywords you use, especially if you put effort into creating the keywords. Lightroom displays a list of all of your keywords, so if you can't remember a specific keyword (was it "Concert" or "Performance"?), you can simply scroll through the list. Furthermore, just like folders, you can create hierarchies of keywords, so you can have an Animal top level keywords, and many animal types underneath. You could even have a Mammal keyword underneath, and additional keywords underneath Mammal.

Everything you could do with folders can be done with keywords, plus you have additional capabilities. With folders, a photo can only be in one folder, it can only exist in one hierarchy. With keywords, a photo can have many keywords and can exist in many hierarchies ... so you may have a photo tagged with: Animal, Mammal, Rodent, Capybara and also Zoos, BuffaloZoo (a different hierarchy) and Vacation, Spring2''8 (a different hierarchy) and United States, New York, Buffalo (a different hierarchy)

 

[clee01l]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58'39#msg58'39 date=126'27575']... I'm working with two different issues here. One issue is the existing photo's which are in my pre-made folders on the external HD. The other issue is how to import new photos from my CF cards TO the external HD, which is where all my photos will ultimately reside...[/quote]You do not need to do it all at once. But you can start now and do it right. Begin right now to import using one of the LR suggested date name folder schemes. As time permits and especially as you need to access the older images, rework them into your new improved structure.

While I can tag photo's until my fingers fall off, this doesn't account for one very important factor. Perhaps I don't recall how I tagged an event or thing ? Suppose that I don't even remember certain shoots and have no way of knowing what tags and keywords I'd use in order to narrow down the selections which would help me find something very specific ? With folder names, at least I'd know to look in something like an "animals" folder so that I might find photos of the family dog etc..

"Animal" can be a hierarchial keyword just as easily as it can be a folder name. These searches are most easily manage using Smart Collections and /or metadata filters. With these two tools, I can quickly find all "Animals" or all Liona or images containing Lions and images containing puppies. Using the date filter, I can find every photo taken in 2''9 or just those taken on 8 December, 2''9 or a collection of photos taken on 8 December, 2''9 and 8 December, 2''8.

All my images have at least two keywords. Genre (A person, amimal or event) and Locale. Animals will include child keywords like Lion and puppy and the Event can be used to describe the "Africa Trip" or "Fluffy's 1st birthday" Locale can be USA>TX>Bellaire>Backyard Or Africa> Kenya. If I know nothing more than the photos was taken in Africa I can apply that on import. Later I can go back and add Kenya>Amboseli N.P to Africe for those photos.

 

[ianb]

I completely agree with Paige. Folders are nothing but "Storage Pots" - folders to hold files.

My File structure:

D:WIBfoto
D:WIBfotoDNG_''1
DNG_''1-'''1.Dng
DNG_''1-'''2.Dng
D:WIBfotoDNG_''2
DNG_''2-'''1.Dng
DNG_''2-'''2.Dng
etc
each DNG_''X folder is approx 2'Gb (the size of a Bluray disc for easy backup)

All "Filing" is done in LR making full use of metadata tags, I could not care less where a particular photo physically lives. It needs a big change of mind set to let the software do the work but then each to his/her own.

Ian

 

[erro]

You have to have som kind of folder structure, no matter what, even if you don't care about folders. Dumping all files in one folder is no good.

I move all my images to date-folders (yyyy\mm\dd) because the date a photo was taken doesn't change, and it stays the same no matter how you choose to describe your photo. As opposed to having a folder for "wife" and another folder for "cats". Where will you put your photos that have both wife and cat in them?

Instead, tag with keywords "wife" and "cat". Or be even more elaborate, and tag with your wifes actual name (in case you get another wife and your cats namn (so you can distinguish it from other cats).

And build a keyword hierarchy:
- people
- - John
- - Paula
- - Mick
- animals
- - cat
- - - Fluffy
- - dog
- - - Chip

This way, you can easily sort out those photos that you have NOT keyworded for people.

 

[ccraig]

The simple answer to your question is "No, there's no Lightroom native way to automatically move photos into an arbitrarily defined Folder/Directory hierarchy." Lightroom just isn't designed to make that much out of folder layouts. You could, as someone else described, use metadata to identify them and them move them yourself. You could also, if you're CS savvy, either get the metadata out of the catalogue directly (using sqlite) or write it out to the files and read the exif data. The better answer to your question, which you've already gotten, if you don't really want to do that.

I actually do have my photos roughly by events (I just started 2''9/Christmas for instance) mainly so that I can look at a specific import. I have, though, imported the horrible mishmash of various schemes I tried for organizing photos before I moved to LR into LR and I didn't bother with touching the folders there (or actually even moving them, I just imported at the current location). It's just not worth my time. (I did spend hours updating location, keywords, and dates if they weren't in the exif).

I'll add to this discussion, though, that keywording isn't the only much-better-than-folders organizational tool LR offers you:

- If you know roughly the date you can use metadata filters to narrow it by the date
- If you know the location, and you set the location on your photos (If the GPS doesn't do this for me I'm religious about adding it soon after import) then you could narrow it by that
- If you do a good job of making your keywords hierarchical you can search for something up the tree (so if you don't remember if that was a llama or an alpaca you could just search for animals)

So if you want a photo of animals that's on a safari around June of 2''7 you could ask for animals containing the keyword "animal" that were taken in Tanzania in May through July of 2''7. So I have to agree with Paige, what you need isn't a way to stick it in sensible folders, what you need is a way to crawl through your existing stuff keyword it, but I would add setting the IPTC location fields.

As to the question of what I'm going to do if I stop using Lightroom: In order to stop using Lightroom I would need a new program that treated metadata at least as well as Lightroom (otherwise why would I move?) and I'm not going to use folders for finding things when I do that anyway, so even if I can't find a way to migrate Lightroom metadata over I'd rather manually populate than go back to a single hierarchy folder system of organization.

 

[Denis Pagé]

[quote author=Doug B link=topic=858'.msg58'39#msg58'39 date=126'27575']
Being able to insert the subject matter or event in between the date somewhere would be great. But I don't see this option. I haven't tried looking for it when importing from a CF card yet, but don't see why this wouldn't be possible.

Doug[/quote]

It is possible. The Import dialog box will suggest the list of dated folders (as per your date template) and if you double-click one, you can rename and or add text before confirming the import.

 

[clee01l]

[quote author=erro link=topic=858'.msg58'51#msg58'51 date=126'287552]
You have to have som kind of folder structure, no matter what, even if you don't care about folders. Dumping all files in one folder is no good.[/quote]Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. Lightroom does not care. Your OS does not care. Files are not organised and written to disk in anyregular contiguois fassion. In face even the whole file is not located in contiguous address blocks. Everything is fragmented on the disc to some degree. The directory structure is really a visual virtualization so that humans can mentally compartmentalize the files. Lightroom is not human and does not need to use the OS directory structure. In fact Lightroom has its own multidimensional organization that is really much more flexible. Making the shift from the mental organization imposed by the limits of the OS file system to another organization schema is what is needed to take addvantage of the functionality in a program like Lightroom.

 

[Replytoken]

Cletus,

While you are correct, backing up or restoring from a totally random organization can be a bit more challenging. Not impossible, but challenging. I would believe that this would be especially so if you have a handful of "outlying" folders residing away from the bulk of your images. Are they included in your backup instructions? Yes, its a personal preference, and LR allows us a more casual organizational structure without any penalty, but that does not mean it works best for everybody. YMMV.

--Ken

 

[MarkNicholas]

My typical hierarchical keyword structure. The key is having a small number of root key words from which to expand.

Location
> UK
>> London
>>> Oxford Circus
> France
> Italy

People
> Friends
>> Jim
> Colleagues
> Family

Celebration
> Xmas
>> 2''5
> Birthdays
>> John's 4'th
> Weddings
>> Tom and Jane

Events
> Rugby World Cup
>> May 2''7
> University Boat Race
>> June 2''8
> Bee Gees Concert
>> June 2''4

Transportation
> Car
> Bus
> Train

Animals
> Dogs
> Cats
> Birds

Views
> Landscapes
> Portraits

 

[Doug B]

Haven't forgotten anybody, just a bit side tracked because of this finger infection. I'm taking everything which has been said into consideration and am trying to decide the best course of action for me, personally.

There is something which only ReplyToken has hit upon, and is very important (to me) that no one else seems to find a factor. I'll get back when I have a bit more time. But please, keep the suggestions coming. I'm totally into different ideas, and also think this could benefit others' as well.

Doug

 

[dj_paige]

Replytoken's comment refers to how you store your photos. There is nothing wrong with setting up a storage system for ease of backup; in fact, its a good idea (unless you have a ghost drive or something similar, in which case folder location probably doesn't matter).

Replytoken was not talking about how you organize your photos for ease of finding your photos, which is what you do in Lightroom, with keywords and metadata and collections; and which is what you don't do using folders.

Again, I'd like to urge people to keep these two concepts separated, because the best methods for storage and the best methods for organizing are distinct and separate if you own Lightroom (or other photographic database software). For many people who have never had a database to organize their photos, they relied on folders for both storage and organization. To use Lightroom in its most powerful and efficient way, it is crucial that people realize that folders are no longer organizational tools.