Systematic folder renaming in Lightroom Classic ?

[jmj2001]

Lightroom Version Number

15.1

Operating System

1. Windows 11

Hello, I have a large Lightroom Catalogue built on date-based folders. Because of some long-term inconsistences, my lowest level folders have names like 2025-11-17 or 1997_09_02. I would like to get them all in the latter form, i.e., replaced all underscores in folder names with dashes. There are far too many instances of this for me to do it manually in LRC and, of course, I don't want to do it externally and have thousands of Missing File redirections to do.
I suspect there is no way to do this but let me ask anyway. If I just have to live with this it's not the end of the world either.

 

[johnbeardy]

You could probably do this by re-importing, which brings its own issues, but there's not an easy way to do this. Even a plugin would need to reimport photos.

Best thing is to leave alone, or maybe manually change a few names at a time when you've nothing better to do. Also remember that your backups would no longer match the new folder names.

 

[clee01l]

I have used several date named folder schemes over the years. Folders are inconsequential to organization of Classic. I find it useful to ignore folders and close the folder panel leaving more space for the Collection panel. Lightroom does not care where your image files are stored. Why should you? This advice is coming from a very anal Lightroom user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Califdan]

I'm with @johnbeardy on this. Just do them a few at a time when you need a break from doing other things. Of course do the renames from within the Folders Panel (right click folder name and select "Rename"). You can use the "folder name" filter to search out folders with the "-" character in the folder name.

 

[jmj2001]

Thanks everyone for the replies which confirm that I'll just have to live with this little inconvenience. I agree with Cletus too that collections are a better way to organise than dated folders and always put new photos in appropriate collections. However my catalogue contains (inherited!) family photos going back a full century and I still have to get round to both fixing all the capture time metadata and creating all the potential collections. So the dated folder structure, which predates Lightroom, still has some utility.
John

 

[Califdan]

I agree with Cletus too that collections are a better way to organise than dated folders and always put new photos in appropriate collections.

Even if you go 'all collections', your images will still be in folders and in most cases those folders will be in one of Adobe's date folder structures. So, what I believe you are saying is that you think it is better to just ignore those folders and do your real structuring with Collections.

Cletus and I go back and forth on this all the time. Seems that there are as many people (like me) who prefer a limited use of folders to segregate each "shoot" and then use Keywords and/or Collections for the more granular organization - and those like Cletus who prefer to igrone folders and exclusivly use collections (leaving folders up to one of Adobe's date only folder structures). There are pros and cons of each so it is not something that can be said to be 'better' one way or another - just 'different'. But, the bottom line is to use whichever method works best for you.

 

[johnbeardy]

I guess I orientate more to Dan's view, but have a nod to Cletus's too. One important aspect is that I ban words like "organise" or "real structuring" - useful as they seem, they're too general, too stretchable. Instead it's a 3 point "physical, categorisation, need" approach:

• Folders are just for physical storage issues - use of disc space, being sure you have complete backup, being sure that you can restore 100% accurately. Drive your folder setup by those almost-objective considerations, not by trying to subjectively categorise or analyse your photos. So, that's behind my "leave be" recommendation here, and I did mention the backup issue.
• Keywords and other metadata are for analysing and categorising photos - put time into this, a little whenever it makes sense, and the searchability soon mounts up.
• Collections are for collecting, gathering, grouping photos when you need to do so. Don't build up collections and sets in expectation, just when you have a specific need.

 

[clee01l]

There are pros and cons of each so it is not something that can be said to be 'better' one way or another - just 'different'. But, the bottom line is to use whichever method works best for you.

I think going back to when Lightroom was first released. There were plenty of people that already had a well established file/folder system used for organization. So, Lightroom was developed to accommodate those people. The first release of Lightroom also introduced Collections as a more robust organization that over came the limitations of the folder based system.

Like the OP, I started with a date named folder scheme that was quite granular YYYY/MM/DD with a folder for the day. As time progressed. I could see my folder panel getting longer and longer and some "DD" folder might only have 1 or 2 images. So I changed my Import folder scheme to YYYY/MM. Some where along the Line I started syncing with the Adobe Cloud and it set up folders as YYYYY/MM-DD. When I first switched to a different folder scheme, I tried changing the old to the new. and found like the OP that it was a labor intensive problem I did a few early years and stopped. Once I realized my date named folder scheme for synced images was "out of sync" with regular imports, I threw up my hands and yielded to the inevitable. For several years now I have kept my Folder panel collapsed. This was probably the reason I did not notice my different folder scheme for synced images.

 

[Califdan]

I wrote an article comparing and contrastings Folders, Collecitons, and Keywords as methods to catagorize and organize images. It can be found here
https://www.danhartfordphoto.com/blog/2024/6/lr022-folders-vs-collections-vs-keywords

Here is a screenshot from that article showing my use of folders (basically one folder per shoot)

 

[Gnits]

I think Collections and/ or Keywords and/or Ratings are very useful, very important and I use them all the time,...

but I am in the camp that I store my images in time sequential folders per trip/project/event.
Organised by year... each folder is given a sequential (project) number plus short description... so all folders are in chronological sequence within each year.

Anyone who has put the time and effort to figure out a schema that works for their needs .....reaps long term and continuous rewards for the initial effort.

I thing it is a good idea to outline different approaches, as anyone starting such a journey has sight of a few different model structures to consider for their personal approach.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

I agree…that collections are a better way to organise than dated folders and always put new photos in appropriate collections.

Just to be clear (not just for you, but for others that might read this thread) that folders vs. collections is not an either/or, better/worse decision. The way to think about it is whether folder organization is good enough, and if not, then you consider additional meta-organization through collections.

Folder organization is not optional, because Lightroom Classic must find the original source media in the OS file system and the file system uses folders. Therefore, it is never a question of whether or not you’re going to organize folders (because you have to), the only question is how you want to organize folders. Many of us here, including myself, have decided that folders are best organized by date. However that doesn’t work best for everyone; for example, if most of someone’s photography is events, then it might make more sense to organize folders by event or client first and then by date.

Collections organization is all virtual, so it should be used whenever there’s value in organizing in ways that could not be done with folders. For example, if you want to make a slide show or book of photos collected across many years or many events (“e.g. best of 2025”), it doesn’t make sense to screw up your folder organization by moving or duplicating original media out of date-organized or event-organized folders and into a folder just for that project. It’s better to leave the originals in their folders that are consistently organized for their long-term permanent storage, and just make collections (virtual lists) that reference any combination of originals from any source. Then you can export the edited final images from the collection into a project-specific folder.

So, many of us use dated folders for primary/permanent organization, and collections for project-specific organization.
Both/and, not either/or.
Both used simultaneously for its different best purpose, not one or the other being “better” in an absolute sense.

Of course another possible reason so many of us organize folders by date is because Lightroom Classic can automatically build those date hierarchies on import, based on the Destination panel settings in the Import dialog box, so the amount of manual folder organization is zero, it just happens. But it’s nice that Adobe added the “Add to Collection” option in the Import dialog box so that we can take care of both folder and collection organization at import time.

I also agree with John Beardsworth that keywords should be part of organization. The difference is that collections are Lightroom Classic-specific and are stored at the catalog level, but keywords are IPTC standard, are widely compatible with non-Adobe apps and websites, and very importantly are stored at the image, not catalog, level. Keywords often make it easier to build collections; for example, if you want a collection containing photos with both a brother and sister in them, being able to first find all images keywords with their names will speed up creating that collection. Or, you can just make a Smart Collection that automatically gathers all images with both keywords. If images are exported from that collection with keywords, then other people can also search and organize using those keywords in other apps, devices, or on IPTC-friendly websites where those images are posted.

 

[jmj2001]

My little technical query seems to have sparked quite a discussion about the virtues and vices of folders versus collections. Let me just offer an observation from my own experience over several years: a consequence of my enthusiasm for collections is that the number of collections in my catalogue seems to grow (at least) quadratically with time whereas the number of folders grows linearly.
John

 

[clee01l]

Just to be clear (not just for you, but for others that might read this thread) that folders vs. collections is not an either/or, better/worse decision. The way to think about it is whether folder organization is good enough, and if not, then you consider additional meta-organization through collections.

Folder organization is not optional, because Lightroom Classic must find the original source media in the OS file system and the file system uses folders.

Storing imported images by Trip/project/event can work. But folders for "flowers", summer, and Trip/project/event will eventually fail when an Image needs to be in more than one folder thus named. I will also point out that "flowers, summer, and Trip/project/event". are also keywords and can also be collections that never interfere with each other.

Storing images in folders is not an option and any method can be used as long as there are no conflicts in where the image needs to be in the filesystem. Capture date is one piece of image metadata that is unique to every image. This is why a date named folder scheme always works without any conflicts.
I think the dilemma the OP faced is one that I faced some time ago too. When trying to move older images off to an archive volume this is facilitated easily when the images are stored on the filesystem by date. To that end, Trip/project/event are also time based folder schemes and work for the same reason.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

I think project/event folders can work, but they would work best of all at the top level. For example, a business run on events might find value in their top level folders being by client then event, and then within that, they can be organized by date. The rationale there is that if a business knows that:

• They have no regular need to combine photos across multiple clients/projects/events, because they work from job to job, and new jobs are not related to old jobs.
• They actually would like to prevent photos from being mixed up across clients, for various legal reasons.

Then they might want to not only have their top level folder organization be by client, but they might also find value in maintaining a different Lightroom Classic catalog for each client. This breaks two of the cardinal rules we live by here (only organize folders by dates, only use one catalog), but that’s OK if there is a good reason.

If we’re talking about individuals/hobbyists with their own photos (that includes me), then OK, have one folder hierarchy, date-based, tracked by a single Lightroom Classic catalog. I do that. But all I am saying is that we cannot assume that one dogmatic approach fits everyone, because I think it doesn’t. The Lightroom Classic Missing FAQ book acknowledges that there are sometimes reasons to do things differently.

 

[PhilBurton]

Assuming that you are not a professional (am I am not either) a date based approach is probably the best, using keywords and collections to do a subject or location type organization. That has been my experience over time, not just for photos but for other data that I like to organize by year, such as PDFs or bank statements or monthly bills.

If you are willing to experiment, you might consider program that automatically renames files and folders. For Windows, there are a plethora of such programs. You could be pleasantly surprised.

Be sure to back up first and be sure to read up on how to locate missing images. After your change folder names, LrC will complain about missing photos.

 

[camner]

My little technical query seems to have sparked quite a discussion about the virtues and vices of folders versus collections. Let me just offer an observation from my own experience over several years: a consequence of my enthusiasm for collections is that the number of collections in my catalogue seems to grow (at least) quadratically with time whereas the number of folders grows linearly.
John

Well, at least the number of folders is not growing exponentially! (This seems to be the adjective the press uses any time it wants to say “the growth rate is really, REALLY, big”

 

[jmj2001]

I started this thread with a little technical query as to whether there just might be some way to automate folder renaming in Lightroom Classic. As I suspected, there isn't. (Thanks to John Beardy who confirmed what I thought in the first answer)

It's time I pointed out that I have been well aware of the relative advantages of collections versus folders for many years and I exploit them extensively. My question was not about collections.

Thanks to everyone,
John (aka OP)

PS In case anyone wants to know my initial motivation: beyond tidiness, I have written some utilities of my own to help manage my photos (they don't interfere with LRC) and it would sometimes be a little easier if my folders were consistently named.

 

[johnbeardy]

That desire for tidiness often kicks in when you make a deliberate change like this. I faced a similar question when I changed my filenaming practice from one that preserved the original filename (eg 040325 003782 Tropea panorama.xxx where 3782 came from the camera-generated DSCF3782) to one that incorporates a per-day sequential number control (251226_0012 Thornbridge Brewery.xxx). Should I go back and rename thousands of earlier files to have everything tidier or consistent? The answer comes from my "folders (and filenames) should be driven by physical storage issues" - renaming old files would invalidate all existing backups, which I could have done....

A friend had a similar problem after misspelling "cemetery" as "cemetary" in hundreds of old filenames. In the end, so what? The old stuff was properly backed up, and he relied on his metadata and not folder/filenames to find all the cemetery photos. The tidiness impulse was sated by having one keyword instead of ones for each alternative. The best answer is often to leave the past as-is, securely backed-up, and put the energy into getting folders and filenames right from now on and on maintaining and improving the keywords etc.

We're nearly 20 years into Lightroom, more as some of us used earlier DAMs, and the long term is important. Over time clients merge, split up, change their names. Or your interpretation of the subject changes, or out of one theme of your photography you find another one emerges. Countries break up too, cities change name etc. What to do with your folder structures then?

There can be reasons for breaking the principle (confidentiality was mentioned) but dates have the virtue for folders of being objective and unchanging, and keywords and other metadata are much more flexible for analysing and categorising pictures so that it's easy to collect them when you need.

 

[iwaddo]

I started out with a pure date based approach allowing LrC to create the Folders as per the images that were imported.

But then do I really want a multiple day trip split into different Folders - absolutely not, so I moved to creating a hybrid approach like 2026/2026-01-Description. Per the OP I did go through the Folders in LrC tidying and reorganising a bit at a time to move them from the dated approach to Description approach.

My images are all renamed using the original image number + Description

I can find images by date in the Folder list and the Description works for searching. The description is usually the trip or location, rarely about the images.

I do create some Keywords.

Do I need a one-to-one Collection list to match my Folder List - absolutely not, so I create Collections as needed to bring together images from different folders or just a subset of images from a single Folder. My Collections serve several purposes, 1, syncing to my iPad or 2, bringing candidate images together for a project 2, syncing to Portfolio.

I do use Smart Collections, with Folder Names and Keywords and the Smart Collection Sync plug-in from Jeffrey Friedl.

I have a Collection Set called Transient - that should tell you something. I have other Collections that are more persistent.

 

[clee01l]

That desire for tidiness

Is also known as being "Anal" when I referenced my own encounters with this very problem. Once recognized in yourself it becomes evident that often it is a problem that does not need a solution.
A very wise man (my therapist) many years ago encouraged me to ask myself this question; "How important is this going to be a year from now?" For most things, they won't be important a year from now or even tomorrow. And as it turns out this folder naming issue has no impact on Lightroom at all. All filters on capture date or searches on the same do not depend on a name of a folder. The same is true when generating Smart Collections. If Lightroom does not care how you name your folders, why should you?

Keep in mind this behavior is an indication that one’s anxiety is out of control. Anal behavior is an attempt to control that anxiety. Once recognised, the world's chaos is a lot easier to live with.