Unable to send file to the trash from Lightroom Classic

[Ckeohane]

Lightroom Version Number

15.5

Operating System

1. macOS 26 Tahoe

I am on a Mac Studio and reformatted a Samsung T7 from ExFat to APFS and then transferred my LR picture file to the reformatted disk. I then updated the file location in Lightroom to align the images with my catalog. I am able to view and edit images in LR, but if I attempt to send an image to trash I get the attached message. Any idea how to fix this. The T7 shows there is still 718.09 GB available.



Thank you,

 

[Hal P Anderson]

The message says that the files are on a volume that doesn't support trash. When you created the APFS volume, did you fail to do whatever was necessary to support trash?

 

[clee01l]

I am on a Mac Studio and reformatted a Samsung T7 from ExFat to APFS and then transferred my LR picture file to the reformatted disk. I then updated the file location in Lightroom to align the images with my catalog. I am able to view and edit images in LR, but if I attempt to send an image to trash I get the attached message. Any idea how to fix this. The T7 shows there is still 718.09 GB available.



Thank you,

Do "GetInfo" to verify that the volume is indeed APFS. In "GetInfo" verify Permissions .

• Check Full Disk Access: in System Settings > Privacy & Security > Full Disk Access, then toggle off and back on for the affected application (like Lightroom).

• Restart your Mac

 

[Ron-Alexander]

I am on a Mac Studio and reformatted a Samsung T7 from ExFat to APFS and then transferred my LR picture file to the reformatted disk. I then updated the file location in Lightroom to align the images with my catalog. I am able to view and edit images in LR, but if I attempt to send an image to trash I get the attached message. Any idea how to fix this. The T7 shows there is still 718.09 GB available.



Thank you,

To add Trash support to an APFS volume that does not have it, you need to manually create a hidden local directory named .Trashes at the root of that volume and configure the correct ownership permissions.

When macOS detects an external or secondary APFS volume, it often fails to generate a dedicated trash folder if permissions are misconfigured or if "Ignore ownership on this volume" is checked. Consequently, deleting files from that drive prompts an immediate, permanent deletion instead of sending them to the bin.
Here is exactly how to fix it using the Terminal app.

Step 1: Disable "Ignore Ownership"
Before creating the directory, you must ensure that macOS enforces user permissions on this specific drive.

1. Open Finder and right-click your external APFS volume in the sidebar.
2. Select Get Info from the context menu.
3. Expand the Sharing & Permissions section at the very bottom of the info window.
4. Click the Lock icon and type your Mac administrator password to unlock the settings.
5. Ensure that the checkbox labeled "Ignore ownership on this volume" is unchecked.

Step 2: Create the Hidden Trash Directory

You will now manually build the directory structure that macOS requires to pool trashed items from that volume.

1. Open the Terminal app (found in Applications > Utilities).
2. Type the following command to navigate to the root directory of your specific volume (replace YourVolumeName with the actual name of your APFS volume):
3. cd /Volumes/YourVolumeName
4. Create the hidden base Trash folder by executing:
5. sudo mkdir .Trashes
   (Note: You will be prompted to type your Mac's admin password. No characters will show on the screen while you type; just type it and hit Enter).

Step 3: Match the Folder Ownership to Your User ID

macOS isolates trashed items by user ID (UID). For most primary Mac users, this ID is 501.

1. Determine your exact user account ID by typing:
2. id -u
3. Create a sub-folder matching that ID number inside the .Trashes directory (assuming your ID is 501):
4. sudo mkdir .Trashes/501
5. Grant full reading, writing, and executing privileges to your user account over that directory:
6. sudo chmod 700 .Trashes/501
7. sudo chown -R $(whoami):staff .Trashes

Step 4: Verify Trash Support

To verify that the fix worked:

1. Go back to Finder and open your APFS volume.
2. Select an unwanted test file and press Command + Delete.
3. If the file moves smoothly into your Dock's Trash can without a pop-up warning stating "This item will be deleted immediately," your volume now officially supports the Trash.

 

[Ckeohane]

I'll try this tomorrow. But, when I discovered this problem I moved my pictures back to the previous SSD they were on, also a Samsung T7 but formatted with ExFat and I now have the same problem on that drive. Will above solutions work across drives? Could it be something to do with the updated apps for the silicon chip?
Thanks for the help!

 

[Ron-Alexander]

I'll try this tomorrow. But, when I discovered this problem I moved my pictures back to the previous SSD they were on, also a Samsung T7 but formatted with ExFat and I now have the same problem on that drive. Will above solutions work across drives? Could it be something to do with the updated apps for the silicon chip?
Thanks for the help!

AFAIK it only applies to APFS.

 

[camner]

FWIW, I have formatted many, many external drives as APFS from other formats (including exFAT) and NEVER have had to go through a lengthy & convoluted process using Terminal to create a hidden .Trash folder nor futzed with permissions in order to get the APFS drive to support Trash.. I also always have found it works much better to have ownership ignored on external volumes rather than not ignored. Simply using Disk Utility to format the DRIVE (not just a specific volume) as APFS has always done the trick for me.

If I were in your shoes, before going through the process Ron-Alexander suggests, I would personally start over by (a) rebooting the Mac, then (b) use Disk Utility again on the T7, but be sure that you are formatting the DRIVE as APFS, not just a particular existing exFAT volume on an existing and already formatted drive. If you want to have multiple APFS volumes on the T7, start with one and make sure Trash works before going back into Disk Utility and creating additional volumes.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

This is a known issue, reported and discussed over and over in this forum and in the Adobe Community forums. It’s unclear why this happens. There are a few suggestions that solve it for some, but not for others. It’s not really a big deal, because you can click on the button in the lower left corner and delete the images from disk directly. I have seen the issue myself too, twice in fact. In both cases it lasted about two weeks, and then it disappeared again as mysteriously as it started. Here are just a few links:

D

Library module Thread 'Can't delete from external drives'

Mar 3, 2025

So after upgrading my 2022 M1 Mac Studio to Sequoia I can no longer move photos on an external hard drive to the trash. I get a message saying "the files are on a volume that does not support trash. Would you like to permanently delete them?" I have researched the question and tried various suggestions and none of them have worked. I can do the permanent delete but am wondering why this is happening and if there is a solution? Thank you in advance for your help with this!

• debi.lightcraft
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Lightroom Classic (folder-based, subscription)

S

Thread '"Files on a Volume that Doesn't Support Trash...."'

Nov 10, 2019

I have a new iMac running Catalina (10.15.1). I have tried to delete photos from LR but get the message "Files can't be moved to trash; files on a volume that doesn't support trash - delete permanently?" This only just started recently, but it had occurred before I installed the latest LR update.

I see from past posts this was an issue as of 2015. Has anything changed on this? I can empty the Trash file with no problem. I would like deleted LR photos to go there first, if it is possible.

Thank you.

• SherryM
• Replies: 7
• Forum: Lightroom Classic (folder-based, subscription)

https://community.adobe.com/questio...rom-a-drive-that-doesn-t-support-trash-973575
https://community.adobe.com/questions-675/a-volume-that-does-not-support-trash-976281

 

[Swingman]

FWIW, I have formatted many, many external drives as APFS from other formats (including exFAT) and NEVER have had to go through a lengthy & convoluted process using Terminal to create a hidden .Trash folder nor futzed with permissions in order to get the APFS drive to support Trash.. I also always have found it works much better to have ownership ignored on external volumes rather than not ignored. Simply using Disk Utility to format the DRIVE (not just a specific volume) as APFS has always done the trick for me.

If I were in your shoes, before going through the process Ron-Alexander suggests, I would personally start over by (a) rebooting the Mac, then (b) use Disk Utility again on the T7, but be sure that you are formatting the DRIVE as APFS, not just a particular existing exFAT volume on an existing and already formatted drive. If you want to have multiple APFS volumes on the T7, start with one and make sure Trash works before going back into Disk Utility and creating additional volumes.

Yesterday (As it happened to me), I am running MacBook M5 Pro on latest OS version, I was trying reformat old Transcend 2TB hard drive formatted to NTFS and so Mac wouldn’t write to it.

So reformatted to APFS but there are options to choose like Master boot drive, Guid Partition and Apple Partition map. I tried the Guid but the speed didn’t improve ( 100Mbs R&W)So now formatted to EXFAT, which is lot faster for smaller blocks. It also left with a main drive as StoreJet Transcend Media which has USB External Physical Disk - Master Boot Record and a Sub directory of Transcend which is MSDOS(FAT32).

Why Master Boot Record? How do I delete this (I tried but failed) and what setting should I use to get APFS non bootable drive with reasonable speed?

 

[Johan Elzenga]

AFAIK it only applies to APFS.

No, it doesn’t. The 16TB spinning disk I use for my images is formatted MacOS Extended and it had the issue twice now. It also disappeared again all by itself.

 

[Ron-Alexander]

In fact, LRQ was the source of my post; I just distilled it down to the steps needed without a lot of details. There are 3 things that may not be obvious, but I also have no idea why this happens. The .Trash folder on the Mac System drive is located in the user home folder. An external drive with an APFS container has a .Trashes (NOTE plural) folder in the EHD root folder. Since it appears to happen to formats other than APFS, I would still use APFS but understand and use the correct formatting procedure for your use case, which is to format the entire EHD as APFS. That will create a drive/container/volume as a single APFS drive. Other use cases can have multiple containers and multiple volumes.
Just an FYI, here is what the TWO trash folders look like

 

[clee01l]

they were on, also a Samsung T7 but formatted with ExFat and I now have the same problem on that drive.

ExFAT does not support Trash The .Trashs folder is only supported on HPFS volumes only on Windows and APFS/HPF+ volumes only on MacOS

 

[camner]

Yesterday (As it happened to me), I am running MacBook M5 Pro on latest OS version, I was trying reformat old Transcend 2TB hard drive formatted to NTFS and so Mac wouldn’t write to it.

So reformatted to APFS but there are options to choose like Master boot drive, Guid Partition and Apple Partition map. I tried the Guid but the speed didn’t improve ( 100Mbs R&W)So now formatted to EXFAT, which is lot faster for smaller blocks. It also left with a main drive as StoreJet Transcend Media which has USB External Physical Disk - Master Boot Record and a Sub directory of Transcend which is MSDOS(FAT32).

Why Master Boot Record? How do I delete this (I tried but failed) and what setting should I use to get APFS non bootable drive with reasonable speed?

GUID Partition Map is really the only one that makes sense for a M series Mac, I think. And according to what I was able to find online, 100MB/s is within spec for a Transcend 2TB HDD (albeit at the lower end of spec). If you are using the Transcend for original photo images (not the catalog), getting the maximum speed out of the drive doesn’t matter so much, since original image files aren’t accessed that often.

It would be interesting to see a screenshot of Disk Utility, and even better if you select Show all devices from the View menu before you take the screenshot. Be sure to have selected the highest (outmost) entry of the Transcend drive selected/highlighted when you take the screenshot. If you have more than one volume on the Transcend drive, highlight each volume in turn and take a screenshot of Disk Utility for each volume.

BTW, EXFAT doesn’t support modern techniques for minimizing corruption if a drive loses power during a write operation, doesn’t support Trash, is incompatible with Time Machine, and doesn’t support volume snapshotting, and personally I wouldn’t prioritize marginally faster transfer speeds over these considerations. (But YMMV!)

 

[Swingman]

GUID Partition Map is really the only one that makes sense for a M series Mac, I think. And according to what I was able to find online, 100MB/s is within spec for a Transcend 2TB HDD (albeit at the lower end of spec). If you are using the Transcend for original photo images (not the catalog), getting the maximum speed out of the drive doesn’t matter so much, since original image files aren’t accessed that often.

It would be interesting to see a screenshot of Disk Utility, and even better if you select Show all devices from the View menu before you take the screenshot. Be sure to have selected the highest (outmost) entry of the Transcend drive selected/highlighted when you take the screenshot. If you have more than one volume on the Transcend drive, highlight each volume in turn and take a screenshot of Disk Utility for each volume.

BTW, EXFAT doesn’t support modern techniques for minimizing corruption if a drive loses power during a write operation, doesn’t support Trash, is incompatible with Time Machine, and doesn’t support volume snapshotting, and personally I wouldn’t prioritize marginally faster transfer speeds over these considerations. (But YMMV!)

Thanks for coming back quickly. My main photos are in Sandisk SSD and a backup in Bee Drive SDD. This Transcend HD is about 6 years old used as 2nd copy to my WD home cloud for Old Windows SurfacePro. I thought it would be ok to use as 2nd backup. My home cloud is obsolete due to not upgradable security software.
I am in bed typing on iPad. Tomorrow I will send the screenshots from Mac.

 

[camner]

Thanks for coming back quickly. My main photos are in Sandisk SSD and a backup in Bee Drive SDD. This Transcend HD is about 6 years old used as 2nd copy to my WD home cloud for Old Windows SurfacePro. I thought it would be ok to use as 2nd backup. My home cloud is obsolete due to not upgradable security software.
I am in bed typing on iPad. Tomorrow I will send the screenshots from Mac.

A backup drive doesn’t have to be fast, since it can just work in the background (assuming you have some sort of automatic backup software). Do you also have an offsite backup?

Do you use Time Machine as part of your backup strategy?

 

[Swingman]

A backup drive doesn’t have to be fast, since it can just work in the background (assuming you have some sort of automatic backup software). Do you also have an offsite backup?

Do you use Time Machine as part of your backup strategy?

TM back up to another Sandisk SSD. I don’t currently have any offsite backup. My Bee Drive also backup my directory in the Mac.

 

[camner]

While needing an offsite backup involves the least likely of the various disaster loss-of-data scenarios, they do happen (so far, in my case only to other people)!

 

[clee01l]

I don’t currently have any offsite backup. My Bee Drive also backup my directory in the Mac.

I don't know where you live but I live an a Coast frequented by Hurricanes. Houses burn. Tornadoes are particularly destructive. And some parts of the world experience political unrest. (I would not want to be a Lightroom User in the Ukraine or the Middle East)

Many of us use BackBlaze for Cloud Backup of our critical user files. There is also CrashPlan and Carbonite that offer the same service. The next best alternative to Cloud Backup is a physical relocation of a couple of extra hard drives to swap between your home and someone you can trust.

 

[Swingman]

I don't know where you live but I live an a Coast frequented by Hurricanes. Houses burn. Tornadoes are particularly destructive. And some parts of the world experience political unrest. (I would not want to be a Lightroom User in the Ukraine or the Middle East)

Many of us use BackBlaze for Cloud Backup of our critical user files. There is also CrashPlan and Carbonite that offer the same service. The next best alternative to Cloud Backup is a physical relocation of a couple of extra hard drives to swap between your home and someone you can trust.

I live in Swindon, UK. It’s a built-up area (mid-sized town in Wiltshire, about 70miles west of London) and no hurricane in my living memory. Currently experiencing heatwave as the rest of Europe. I am nowhere near a forest, coast or a floodplain. Drought is a possibility this year as we had no rain over 6 weeks.
I am researching to replace my NAS at the moment but haven’t ruled out off-site storage.

 

[Gnits]

I am researching to replace my NAS at the moment but haven’t ruled out off-site storage.

I received a NAS on a Thur, commissioned on a Fri and decommissioned on a Mon. Its main initial purpose was a repositary for my growing image file library. For me ( and needs differ) I could not deal with the delays involved in importing from card to disk (ie NAS). Ie.. I could not deal with the really slow network speeds.

I decommissioned the NAS, transferred the disk drives as Sata drives inside my PC.. one for images and a second as a separate spinning drive to backup my images.

I since repurposed the NAS as a second layer of backup (ie speed not vip) and it is located on separate power circuit and several rooms distant from my PC.

If I was installing a new storage system today.. My preference would be to install a 10Gbps NAS with a dedicated 10Gbps connection between my PC and the NAS.. but I would not use that option because network components for 10Gbps networks are priced for commercial installs. Today and in the immediate future I would use a local Thunderbolt enclosure.. making sure that my PC has a fully functional Thunderbolt port.

I would get more benefits if I had my images (and data) on a local 10Gbps network.. but I need to wait a little longer until 10 Gbps networks become the de facto retail option.

 

[Jim Wilde]

I live in Swindon, UK. It’s a built-up area (mid-sized town in Wiltshire, about 70miles west of London) and no hurricane in my living memory.

You must have been born after 1987 then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987

 

[Swingman]

I received a NAS on a Thur, commissioned on a Fri and decommissioned on a Mon. Its main initial purpose was a repositary for my growing image file library. For me ( and needs differ) I could not deal with the delays involved in importing from card to disk (ie NAS). Ie.. I could not deal with the really slow network speeds.

I decommissioned the NAS, transferred the disk drives as Sata drives inside my PC.. one for images and a second as a separate spinning drive to backup my images.

I since repurposed the NAS as a second layer of backup (ie speed not vip) and it is located on separate power circuit and several rooms distant from my PC.

If I was installing a new storage system today.. My preference would be to install a 10Gbps NAS with a dedicated 10Gbps connection between my PC and the NAS.. but I would not use that option because network components for 10Gbps networks are priced for commercial installs. Today and in the immediate future I would use a local Thunderbolt enclosure.. making sure that my PC has a fully functional Thunderbolt port.

I would get more benefits if I had my images (and data) on a local 10Gbps network.. but I need to wait a little longer until 10 Gbps networks become the de facto retail option.

Here in UK, 99.99% of the household don’t have any dedicated network connection to everyroom. You only get one 10Gbs port on most WiFi-6 routers. In theory you could add network cables from the router to rooms you need connection. I don’t know the power requirements for long 10Gbs cables to operate efficiently. Will your PC cope with very long 10Gbs cables?
I have two old WD cloud and they occupy two ports and my central heating controller uses another.. Other is used by Nintendo console. Also have landline connected to Morden as now it is voip connection. One of my WD is using the 10Gbs port but it can read and write at max 1Gbs.

 

[Ron-Alexander]

I live in Swindon, UK. It’s a built-up area (mid-sized town in Wiltshire, about 70miles west of London) and no hurricane in my living memory. Currently experiencing heatwave as the rest of Europe. I am nowhere near a forest, coast or a floodplain. Drought is a possibility this year as we had no rain over 6 weeks.
I am researching to replace my NAS at the moment but haven’t ruled out off-site storage.

Hopefully, you are toying with us. There is ALWAYS some sort of disaster that requires off-site storage. A gas line explosion, a very large vehicle crashing into your house, or an airplane falling out of the sky onto your house. The decision on your part is simple: either your image data is important enough to you to have off-site storage, or it isn't. The cost of Backblaze in the UK is 76 GBP. It takes a while to do the initial backup, but after that it is seamless. I recently had to make a trip where my only internet connection was the motel's poor WiFi, but when I checked my BB status, I was 100% backed up. In a few days, I will be taking a 7- to 10-day trip in a Teardrop trailer with NO facilities. My off-site will be the car towing the trailer. It is my ONLY option for off-site from the trailer. Not ideal, but it is better than nothing.

 

[Swingman]

You must have been born after 1987 then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987

Jim, Thank you your assumption of my age. I have been SLR and Mirrorless cameras for 50 years. My first SLR was Pentax KM with standard 50mm f1.8. I am only 69 and a half now. I do remember my home then in Wivenhoe, near Colchester, which sustained lot of damages to my garden fence. Some of them were uprooted but no damage to the house. There were some flooding in some parts of Colchester but not in my neighbourhood. Once during the eighties we had lots of snow and I had to abandon my car on a A road and walk few hundred yards to my home.
Even in some parts of Swindon we have minor floods mainly in the old town area.
I was a Civil Engineer(Bridge design) and whenever I move houses I always check the floodplain maps before committing to it. Few years ago I was planning to move to new larger property, but decided against because it is not flood proof. The following year that garden had standing water for few days after heavy rain.

 

[Ron-Alexander]

I received a NAS on a Thur, commissioned on a Fri and decommissioned on a Mon. Its main initial purpose was a repositary for my growing image file library. For me ( and needs differ) I could not deal with the delays involved in importing from card to disk (ie NAS). Ie.. I could not deal with the really slow network speeds.

I decommissioned the NAS, transferred the disk drives as Sata drives inside my PC.. one for images and a second as a separate spinning drive to backup my images.

I since repurposed the NAS as a second layer of backup (ie speed not vip) and it is located on separate power circuit and several rooms distant from my PC.

If I was installing a new storage system today.. My preference would be to install a 10Gbps NAS with a dedicated 10Gbps connection between my PC and the NAS.. but I would not use that option because network components for 10Gbps networks are priced for commercial installs. Today and in the immediate future I would use a local Thunderbolt enclosure.. making sure that my PC has a fully functional Thunderbolt port.

I would get more benefits if I had my images (and data) on a local 10Gbps network.. but I need to wait a little longer until 10 Gbps networks become the de facto retail option.

I am confused by your comments. were you attempting to set up a NAS as the primary image repository, in which case there could be an issue, or as a secondary copy to the PC attached EHD drive(s)