Brad Snyder
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,293
- Location
- Port Deposit, Maryland USA
- Lightroom Experience
- Intermediate
In the Troubleshooting forum, a forum member asked for assistance with manipulating filenames and folder organization, with a set of images that she/he had previously cataloged with ratings, metadata, etc.
Indulge me for a moment, and let me wax philosophical about the question in general.
We've gone to the effort to annotate our images in numerous ways, among them ratings, labels, pick/reject, keywords, IPTC/EXIF metadata (e.g. date/time/location, and gear specific, camera/lens, aperture, etc).
With collections, including smart collections, and filter presets we should be able to put our fingers on a given image in moments, or build temporary 'associations' for further processing (e.g. Smith Wedding, Bride's Mother's Picks, 5x7 aspect, b/w treatment) which are jettisoned when processing is complete. Does hierarchal file ordering and strategic file naming add anything to the process?
What do we care how the files are arranged on disk? LR is taking care of that for us. Much in the way that powerful search engines have, to a certain degree, obviated the need for bookmarking; why remember stuff, when you can just search again instantly?
Naturally, there're holes in this philosophy, principally around off-line archival and backups, but LR is evolving in that direction.
The situation described in the original post gives me the opportunity to ask, what is to be gained from the investment in normalizing filenames and folder structures? (Believe me, I understand the need for order, and personally I'm in exactly the same boat). What would happen if the existing files remain the way they are? One could adopt a more pleasing structure moving forward; is it necessary to backfit the existing files?
I don't intend anything in the nature of a 'flame' in this whatsoever, I'd just like to start a dialog. I'm wondering if wiser heads than mine have any thoughts to share.
Opinions, anybody?
Indulge me for a moment, and let me wax philosophical about the question in general.
We've gone to the effort to annotate our images in numerous ways, among them ratings, labels, pick/reject, keywords, IPTC/EXIF metadata (e.g. date/time/location, and gear specific, camera/lens, aperture, etc).
With collections, including smart collections, and filter presets we should be able to put our fingers on a given image in moments, or build temporary 'associations' for further processing (e.g. Smith Wedding, Bride's Mother's Picks, 5x7 aspect, b/w treatment) which are jettisoned when processing is complete. Does hierarchal file ordering and strategic file naming add anything to the process?
What do we care how the files are arranged on disk? LR is taking care of that for us. Much in the way that powerful search engines have, to a certain degree, obviated the need for bookmarking; why remember stuff, when you can just search again instantly?
Naturally, there're holes in this philosophy, principally around off-line archival and backups, but LR is evolving in that direction.
The situation described in the original post gives me the opportunity to ask, what is to be gained from the investment in normalizing filenames and folder structures? (Believe me, I understand the need for order, and personally I'm in exactly the same boat). What would happen if the existing files remain the way they are? One could adopt a more pleasing structure moving forward; is it necessary to backfit the existing files?
I don't intend anything in the nature of a 'flame' in this whatsoever, I'd just like to start a dialog. I'm wondering if wiser heads than mine have any thoughts to share.
Opinions, anybody?