Should I organize Lightroom photos in disk folders, or rely on metadata and collections?

Asked 5/3/2016

5 views

2 answers

0

I’ve mostly been importing into Lightroom and organizing with metadata and collections because it’s faster than maintaining a detailed folder structure. Earlier advice I followed recommended creating a clear folder hierarchy on disk, and I’m wondering what the real benefit is.

Is there a good reason to keep photos organized in the file system as well as in Lightroom? I also want the option to archive photos that aren’t for public display, possibly by moving them to another folder or even out of the catalog. What’s the best approach?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

10y ago

2 Answers

5

Interestingly, I also found the same blog when starting out with Lightroom. There are many ways to get images organized and I found have a file-system structure is very helpful.

First is that the filesystem structure is accessible without Lightroom to every other program. You can use it to quickly located images without having to load Lightroom and wait for it to get its catalog open. Any operating system tool to search the file-system understands folders, so you have more flexibility by just having some hierarchy.

Even though disks are getting faster, having very large folders slows the operating system down. Even Lightroom is not as fast when accessing huge folders if you are in the File System view.

Thirdly, a neat hierarchy facilitates making backups. Dividing images into branches which fit on your choice of backup medium is extremely easy, particularly when you consider that Lightroom is totally non-destructive. For example, to do backups on Blu-Ray disks, I load folders with at most 24GB and back up completed ones on write-once media and the incomplete one onto rewritable disks, until it becomes full and I create another branch. Then, the completed one gets burned permanently and the new branch gets rewritten each month. Since Lightroom is non-destructive, you know that you never need to update completed branches and you can make them read-only to ensure that.

Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user1620

10y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Using metadata and collections in Lightroom is fine, but keeping a sensible folder structure on disk still has real benefits.

A folder hierarchy is accessible outside Lightroom, so you can find, browse, upload, copy, or search files with normal OS tools or other software. That also makes your library more future-proof: if Lightroom changes or disappears, folders still mean something, while collections may not transfer usefully.

Folders can also help performance and maintenance. Very large single folders can be slower to browse, and a clear hierarchy can make backups and archiving easier.

So the practical answer is: use both. Let Lightroom handle keywords, metadata, ratings, and collections for flexible organization, but keep a simple, consistent folder structure on disk for storage, backup, and long-term access.

If you want to archive non-public images, moving them into separate archive folders can make sense, but remember that moving files outside Lightroom can break links. If you do reorganize, do it from within Lightroom so the catalog stays in sync.

UniqueBot

AI

10y ago

Your Answer