sub folder images appearing in main folder?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish-head
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fish-head

Guest
Hi Guys,

I've searched around the forums and couldn't find anything on this.

The problem I'm having is when I export web and print version of raw files I get it to add it to the catalog and it shows the exported one is the main folder, so my folder structure goes like this:

Year
- Month
- Shoot date and name
- web
- print

Now when I'm at a folder "Shoot date and name" it shows me everything that is in web and print - is there anyway to just show what is in that specific folder without the images in the sub folders?

Main reason being I just want to be editing the raw files and don't want to get confused with jpgs and tifs.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
f-h, welcome to the forums.

Yes, you need to see Library module menu > Library > about 13 items down is 'Include Photos from Subfolders', make sure it is un-checked.

That should solve the problem. But being the Lr 'guru' that I am, I have to inquire what it is about your work flow that makes you want to keep/reimport the web and print exports? Generally, Lr conventional wisdom is to treat those files as 'disposable'. Lr is designed to create those exports in an 'on-demand' basis, so once you've printed them, or u/l'd them to a site, you have no further immediate need, therefore delete them. You definitely don't want to waste time and resources tracking 3 versions of the same file.
There are certainly legitimate reasons to keep these derivatives available, but frequently we find folks haven't thought the process the whole way through.

Food for thought ..............
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi Brad,

Thanks for you comments, fixed it straight away - I've been looking around for ages trying to find it (think I was in develop though).

The main reason for keeping the sub folders is with things like weddings, I export full res jpegs and low res for the web. Then I create different sized prints from the jpegs folder so the raws still stay in their original shape etc

(Say a client wants 6x8s and 8x12s or something)

After typing that out and reading what you said... maybe it would be better to not include these folders in the catalog...

Hmmm I will try it without and see how it goes.

Thanks for you help!

Cheers
Jeremy
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jeremy, While you're thinking, think about this.

You have the Smith Wedding folder. Create a collection set called Smith Wedding, in the collection set add collections for 4x6, 5x7, etc. From your clients' print order, pick out all the 4x6s, say, add them, as Virtual Copies, to the proper collection. Do the same for the other sizes/aspects. Switch to a collection view, crop all the photos to size/framing, move on to the next size, etc. Export each collection to an 'unmanaged' location, still organized by size, and shoot them off for processing, all still neatly organized by size. When the prints arrive satisfactorily, just get rid of the export files. A similar method can be employed for compressed web exports/emails.

You'll still have everything you need to reproduce the files in the future. The files will be self-managing within Lr from a Virtual Copy standpoint. Most importantly, a VC takes only a few kBs to store, in contrast to the much larger print files.

A different way of thinking about the process, but many find it more productive in the long run.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi Brad,

I created a new collection set with 6x4s, 5x7s etc, created a virtual copy of an image (right click, create virtual copy).

But I can't find a way to add that to the specific collection. I'm using lightroom 2.'

How do I get it in the collection? Also, will I then have to delete all the virtual copies in the original folder (so there isn't double ups).

Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you click the + on the Collections panel bar, it'll give you the opportunity to create a new collection with virtual copies of all the currently selected images, all in one swell foop.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jeremy,

Ok, there might be a different version issue here, I'm running the very latest, 2.3 just released last week. You say you're on Lr2.'

Working in Library Grid View, with the Left Hand Panel exposed, I create a collection set by clicking on the + sign in the collection panel header Left Hand Panel. Eg Smith Wedding Set.

I then select all the images in the original *folder* that I want for a certain crop. Then I right click on the Smith Wedding Set item and choose 'create collection ...' The resulting dialog should offer the following options:
a) a box to name the collection eg. 5x7
b) an option to *include* the currently selected images in the new collection.
c) an option to create virtual copies for each of the selected/included images.

That should do it all in one step.

From where you are, you can select a group of images for a given collection, and just drag them to the collection from the grid to the target collection. (There are other tricks as well). Be sure to drag the images by the thumbnail image, and not the gray frame.

As for the multiple copies in the original folder, Lr has automatically placed those images in 'Stacks' for you. You can't just delete them from the folder, because that's actually where they're stored, (not exactly, but close enough for now). Let's say you created a 4x6 VC and a 5x7 VC for a given original. If you look closely at those three images in Grid View, you'll note that the first has a little || icon on the left side, and the last has a little || icon on the right side. This indicates that these images constitute a stack. On either the rightclick context menu, or the Main > Photo menu, you can choose Stacking > and either expand or collapse all or individual stacks. This should enable you to hide away those distracting copies. Note that a count/sequence of the copies is displayed in a numeric icon on the grid/filmstrip image.

A lot to digest in one sitting, particularly if I've been unclear somewhere. Ask back .....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wow. Ok.

After picking my jaw up from the floor I think you guys just saved me a couple of hundred GB of space... It'll be hard to change my workflow, but it seems well worth it!

Thanks again

(Realised I'm using v2.2 btw)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Brad Snyder said:
By all means u/g to 2.3 then. There are numerous bug fixes and some speed ups.

It's been tested farily well, and seems rock solid.
Click to expand...

Knock on wood!!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top