Jump to content

LR4 "bulk" import question


Recommended Posts

<p>I have a very specific LR4 question:<br>

I have a number of folders with images in them on my working disk.<br>

I would like to import ("Add") them into LR4 all at once but retain the current folder names (i.e. folder-name -> collection-name).</p>

<p>For example, if I had five folders named "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" on my working disk, I would like to end up with five collections in LR named "a", "b", "c", "d", "e".</p>

<p>In the past I've done this "one at a time" manually (i.e. creating the LR collection and importing each folder separately), but I've just come back from a 10-day shoot with a bunch of folders with ~10,000 images and I'd like to start an import and come back when it's all done instead of sitting at the computer and waiting for each import to complete before going on to the next one.</p>

<p>Can this be done?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There's no automated way to create the collections, but I don't understand why you need to wait for each import to complete. You can run multiple imports at once, then once they're done create the collections.</p>

<p>I also don't understand the purpose of creating collections which exactly match folders... Why not just work in the folders then?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Surely you can just import them as is, including the folder structure, then just create Collections from the imported folders. That way you can do the bulk import in one go, creating the collections with imported images is quick.</p>

<p>even if the file structure isn't what you want it to end up as that is no problem as you can change the file structure with drag and drop within the folders section of LR afterwards.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I also don't understand the purpose of creating collections which exactly match folders... Why not just work in the folders then?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's possible that I'm just missing a basic understanding of LR workflow. I didn't realize you could work in the folders directly. I think I missed that because the "Folders" section of the UI is collapsed so all I saw listed in the "Library" section was the collections.</p>

<p>Many thanks!<br /> I think that's the solution to my "problem", just the dumb person sitting at the computer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There are people who advocate working that way (with the Folders panel collapsed or hidden), mostly as a way of training yourself to rely on things like Keywords, Ratings, Picks, Color Labels, Collections, and Smart Collections for organization rather than relying on folders.</p>

<p>That's good advice for those who need that sort of training, but I personally use date-based folders and work in Folders most of the time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i dont see the point either of working with collection that are a perfect representation of your folder on your HD.. maybe you use the word *collection* without the real meaning of it?</p>

<p>but like others says.. and what i always tell people is; Lr is the exact representation of your HD.. if it look like a mess, it will be a mess in Lr.. if you have take your time to create folder and name them, it will be the EXACT same representaion in Lr.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>There are people who advocate working that way (with the Folders panel collapsed or hidden), mostly as a way of training yourself to rely on things like Keywords, Ratings, Picks, Color Labels, Collections, and Smart Collections for organization rather than relying on folders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think it is a bad idea! I’m a belt and suspenders guy. I don’t see how letting a proprietary database be the sole way of organization is a safe idea. If you decide to move onto another DAM, if the catalog goes south (and you didn’t back up which is kind of dumb), you’re screwed. If you are working with a well organized folder structure, you can find items without having to even launch LR or a DAM. All you want to do is drag and drop or find an image to open in Photoshop or something else, it makes sense to me that you can do this without having to rely on LR or any other such product. <br>

Then Collections (for me always smart collections, never dumb collections), keywords and the like just help within the database. <br>

I can take my entire drive of images and hook it up to a machine and find anything I need on any machine with or without LR thanks to both a well structured folder system and within folders, a well structured file naming convention. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but like others says.. and what i always tell people is; Lr is the exact representation of your HD.. if it look like a mess, it will be a mess in Lr.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed! Having the HD well organized means so is LR which takes a little time up front but saves time in the end. </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>i dont see the point either of working with collection that are a perfect representation of your folder on your HD.. maybe you use the word *collection* without the real meaning of it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well there are really smart collections and everything else (dumb collections). Having a pile of dumb collections that mimic your folder representation is I agree downright silly.</p>

<p>Smart collections are incredibly powerful and useful. For example, I have one that finds all images without keywords so I can do my homework and make sure they have this necessary data. If I see zero in the smart collection, I move on. Occasionally I miss some images. Another is filtering images by specific dates. Or images that have a Pick flag but not the keyword Pick (I use both, I want an embedded piece of data that tells me this image is a pick). Or filtering images that are DNG’s and those raws that may need to be converted. I just wish the LR team would add more functionality into smart collections. All possible metadata, color space, the ability to make a smart collection based on another smart collection.</p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now that I understand that collections are not the only way to organize files in LR, I think I will be using them more for "meta organization" (ex. a collection of all flagged images from an event). I have an organization system that I've been using for years that covers most of my needs and I'm really happy to learn that LR allows me to simply use that, too.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the education - it's a great community here!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...