Please send screenshots of folder structure

[allanrube]

I started in LR back in December. It was very foreign to me but I got a lot of help from here and videos online. I thought I was setting up my folders in a good manner but no longer think so. The first screen shot show what the folders for LR look like on my hard drive. This is similar to what I used pre-LR days and so I thought it was pretty good. However, the second screen shot shows the folder organization I see in LR. I envision a day in the near future where I will have a really long list that it will take a while to scroll to where the files are.

1. I would like to see screen shots of the main folder on your HD where you keep your files? Is it simpler than this?

2. Am I worried about nothing and thus should just carry on as I am doing?

3. My 3 main areas of photography are landscapes, birds, other. Birds is about 85% of my shooting, landscape is 11%, and other is about 4%. Feel free to gives me ideas on changing the folder structure if you think I am going down a path that will lead to needless complication.

 

[Jim Wilde]

The problem would seem to be that you are not showing the "year" folders in the Lightroom Folders Panel, which you can fix by right-clicking on one of the 2013 folders and select "Show Parent Folder". Repeat for one of the 2014 folders. Also suggest changing the display time to "Folder Name Only" (click on the + sign at the right-hand side of the Folders panel header).

My folders panel display is attached, with one of the year folders expanded. As you can see I don't "descriptively name" my folders, for my shooting style it would be utterly pointless and impractical....so I treat the folders as containers only, and use other metadata, mainly keywords, to "organise". But that conversation has already been had, and it's something that you'll either adopt or not as you see fit. FWIW, I organised by folder name back in the day, but eventually my organisation evolved as I learned more about how to use Lightroom to better effect. That may happen with you, or you may be happy staying as you are....it's a totally personal thing after all.

 

[allanrube]

Thanks for your reply Jim. The show parent folder helped a lot. It also seems clear not to worry about a folder hierarchy on the hard drive - old habits are hard to break. I guess I don't feel comfortable enough to "trust" LR yet.

 

[Jim Wilde]

I guess I don't feel comfortable enough to "trust" LR yet.

No worries....it took me quite a while also, but I eventually got there. You will too!

 

[Selwin]

Hi Allan, here is my screen shot:

As you can see, my system works like Jim's, but I decided to create meaningful names for each folder. Also, 2 different shoots on the same day I keep separated with "a", "b", and so on (look at 130530a and 130530b). I rename the imported folder as LR is building previews. I use rename at import by using "Organise" By date in "20140111" format. Then upon renaming I take away the "20" and add the subject of the shoot.

I have archives per camera. I have one "Qnu" folder per camera, containing current photos (from last quarter). I have a backup entry in CCC that copies the Qnu folder to my Macbook, so that I always have the current RAW files there. After moving the current files to the archives, CCC deletes the images on the Macbook that no longer exist in the source Qnu folder.

 

[Selwin]

I guess I don't feel comfortable enough to "trust" LR yet.

As soon as you learn to use Smart Collections and Publish Services satisfactorily, and learn to trust them, you may feel safe to just using dates in your folders. Smart Collections can be extreme powerful and they're populating very fast. They work in your folder structure too by the way, so you can try them first and then decide if you want to change your folder structure. It's just fine the way it is now, it's just more work on your part maintaining it.

 

[Tony Jay]

Although all of us need to use folders, and therefore a scheme of sorts is definitely required, in which to store images, ultimately to use those folders as the foundation to organise one's image collection is doomed to failure as one's image collection expands.
Metadata, in all its forms, is really the only way that will work in the long term.
Searching for images that are appropriately keyworded and have other metadata completed becomes an absolute breeze.
The two major obstacles are acknowledging the necessity of the keywording and the completion of metadata, followed closely by the task of creating a useful keyword hierarchy.
Once the workflow is established things become much easier.

Tony Jay

 

[LouieSherwin]

Hi,

First I want to say that I think that your existing folder scheme looks just fine and in fact will be useful with assisting you in assigning keywords. I think however, it is important to keep in mind that the primary purpose of folders is simply the physical storage of your image files in the computer filesystem.

I happen to use the same folder organization as Jim, a top level folder sub-divided by YYYY/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD. I choose to put the full date at every level to eliminate confusion when I happen to be browsing with other tools, Finder or Bridge. I rename my image files on import in the form "sherwin-yyyymmdd-nnnn" with the date being the capture date of the image. This pretty much guarantees a unique name for each image in my catalog.

What this means is that adding new images to my catalog is fully automated. I don't have to think about where to put them or what folder names to use. And once they land in a location I don't move them. From this point on I can focus my attention to logical organization of my library by adding metadata like keywords and putting images into collections for various projects.

Usually, as part of the import or immediately after, I will add location information and some high level keywords. I evaluate all the new images, mark as rejected any bloopers, start making my ratings and add more keywords as needed. I use 1star = keep, 2star = share or show on web site or slide show, 3star = best of shoot, 4star = Best of library. Now you can start making filters or smart collections for example all 3star and better of Snowy Owls, or all 2star and better of last summer at the lake, etc..

Back to your existing folders I see that the folder names have a lot of good keyword ideas. You clearly have given some thought about what is important to you. Applying this information as keywords to the images will be a great way to start adding additional value to your collection.

-louie

 

[johnbeardy]

A simple rule is that folders are for the physical safekeeping of your pictures - best use of space, certainty of backup, ease of restoring everything after a crash. They're not for categorising them - that's a job best done by metadata. So don't agonise about folder structures, keep them simple and date-based, and put more time into adding keywords and other metadata.

I'd like to ban the word "organise" in such discussions - "categorise" is far less prone misinterpretation!

John

 

[mak65]

Allan:

Stick around this site and you will pick up lots of helpful guidance. Both Jim and Tony have helped on issues I've had in the past including file folder layout. I use Jim's method, parent is the YYYY, but the sub folders are simply YYYYMMDD and not split into individual sub folder months. I use my keywords layout (also Jim's guidance) to filter.

I also use smart collections as Selwin suggested. I even have individual ones for each camera I have or had.

Good luck in whatever method you settle on.

Michael

 

[Selwin]

A simple rule is that folders are for the physical safekeeping of your pictures - best use of space, certainty of backup, ease of restoring everything after a crash. They're not for categorising them - that's a job best done by metadata. So don't agonise about folder structures, keep them simple and date-based, and put more time into adding keywords and other metadata.

I'd like to ban the word "organise" in such discussions - "categorise" is far less prone misinterpretation!

John

Though I completely agree with your message, I partly agree with your solution. I think "organising" is the physical part on disk and "categorising" is the metadata effort. The trick is to make sure that "organising" gets the minimalist part in the play (only in prelude) and categorise gets the leading role.

Edit: I was just wondering if there is some good article somewhere here or in a blog somewhere that we could add to users interested in reading more.

 

[ogrizzo]

I'm following Peter Krogh's bucket system. It helps a lot in managing back-ups: when a bucket is full, it becomes read-only and it's archived off-site.
I'm also using descriptive names because it makes it easier at edit time: let's work on all pictures I took in Paris at Easter, say.

 

[Selwin]

I'm also using descriptive names because it makes it easier at edit time: let's work on all pictures I took in Paris at Easter, say.

Actually that is why we have metadata. If you add a keyword "Paris" to that set of images, you can find them using filters or smart collections.

 

[KeithS]

Everything in "My Pictures", broken down as shown on the image.

Keywords and smart collections are key.

 

[sizzlingbadger]

I import mine by date and then manually add the description later.

 

[pesto126]

Actually that is why we have metadata. If you add a keyword "Paris" to that set of images, you can find them using filters or smart collections.

Agree 100%... Peter's "Bucket system" feels so very outdated and old now.. with the availability of "flags", Color ratings, and tagging with keywords - I see no reason to deal with moving files around in physical folders... import into the final spot (by YYYY->MM-YYYY) and apply a color method (To Develop="Yellow", To Keyword="Red", etc)

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Peter's "Bucket system" feels so very outdated and old now..

You'll note he's changed his recommendations in his recent releases. Times change.

 

[johnbeardy]

They do, but not that much. He still uses a bucket folder structure and optical discs. I actually asked him what he now does when we spoke shortly before Christmas.

Agree 100%... Peter's "Bucket system" feels so very outdated and old now.. with the availability of "flags", Color ratings, and tagging with keywords - I see no reason to deal with moving files around in physical folders... import into the final spot (by YYYY->MM-YYYY) and apply a color method (To Develop="Yellow", To Keyword="Red", etc)

Not really. Flags and ratings make no difference (and were available when Peter wrote the first edition of the DAM Book). I can only presume you misunderstand the bucket system which is all about storing your pictures in a folder structure designed around low tech backup and restoration. The images have always gone into their final date-based folders, and these are then grouped in "bucket" folders which correspond to the capacity of write-once backup media.

John

 

[ogrizzo]

I see no reason to deal with moving files around in physical folders... import into the final spot (by YYYY->MM-YYYY) and apply a color method (To Develop="Yellow", To Keyword="Red", etc)

As far as editing goes, yeah. As far as backing up pictures, I'm not so sure...

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

I can only presume you misunderstand the bucket system which is all about storing your pictures in a folder structure designed around low tech backup and restoration

John is right, Peter's bucket system is not for organizing your images but for keeping them safe.
All organisation can be done with ratings, keywords, smart collections, etc.

I'm using buckets still. 20 Gb max. Then burning this 'full' bucket to Blue Ray Disc as a component of my 3-2-1 backup strategy (use different media).
Roelof