Separating holiday snaps from more 'toggy' photos

[sirch]

I'm just back from a couple of weeks away with hundreds of snaps. most are just that and having deleted the chaff and had a bit of a fiddle in post I only intend to keep the JPGs of these. Mixed in with these are some more serious attempts at photography for which I will keep the RAWs. I was wondering if anyone has an efficient way of applying a bit of post, then moving the JPGs off to separate folders and deleting the RAWs? I usually use lightroom but I am open to other ways of doing this.

 

[odd jim]

Just delete the raws from the HD in LR as you go after exporting the processed JPEG to its destination folder (I create my own) easiest method!

 

[mickledore]

Use the flagging sytem to mark the ones you want to delete. Export as jpeg then select the flags and delete from HDD. Use Control button to select them all at one go.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


All I do is in session folders and, it is so simple
to generate JPGs, I would NEVER delete RAWs
unless they are bad, of course!

 

[sirch]

Thanks both, had a quick play and that looks like a good approach: so apply any post, mark as rejected, set a JPG output folder, export the rejecteds and then "delete rejected" photos.

<edit> cross-posted with @Kodiak Qc - a lot of mine a bad and it just doesn't seem with keeping a few GB of RAWs that are just there for the memory and really have no other photographic merit.

 

[mickledore]

Thanks both, had a quick play and that looks like a good approach: so apply any post, mark as rejected, set a JPG output folder, export the rejecteds and then "delete rejected" photos.

Yup, you've got it.

 

[Phil V]

Thanks both, had a quick play and that looks like a good approach: so apply any post, mark as rejected, set a JPG output folder, export the rejecteds and then "delete rejected" photos.

<edit> cross-posted with @Kodiak Qc - a lot of mine a bad and it just doesn't seem with keeping a few GB of RAWs that are just there for the memory and really have no other photographic merit.

I wouldn't mark as 'rejected' - just because it's the wrong term for an image you're keeping. Just use a rating or a colour label.

 

[mickledore]

You can set the export function in LR so that it always exports JPEGs to a sub folder in the original file. No need to set up a separate folder every time.

 

[odd jim]

You can set the export function in LR so that it always exports JPEGs to a sub folder in the original file. No need to set up a separate folder every time.

That depends on whether you want to catalogue via LRs system or your own.

I don't like LRs date folder system.

 

[Phil V]

That depends on whether you want to catalogue via LRs system or your own.

I don't like LRs date folder system.

It's still easy to 'hybrid', I always create a folder for a job, and have LR import at current location - it'll then export into a subfolder of that.

 

[mickledore]

That depends on whether you want to catalogue via LRs system or your own.

I don't like LRs date folder system.

Not neccessarily. When you import you get a folder in both LR and on your hard drive using whatever nomenclature you choose. Let's call it ABC. When you choose export you can tell LR to export your jpegs to a separate folder in your ABC folder. This is on your hard drive and until you tell LR to syncronise then there is no reference to the jpegs folder in LR.

 

[odd jim]

Not neccessarily. When you import you get a folder in both LR and on your hard drive using whatever nomenclature you choose. Let's call it ABC. When you choose export you can tell LR to export your jpegs to a separate folder in your ABC folder. This is on your hard drive and until you tell LR to syncronise then there is no reference to the jpegs folder in LR.

Yeah that's how I do it, but it's away from LRs own way of cataloging, so my raws stay in their original LR import folder and my processed JPEGs in their actual folder in Windows.

 

[mickledore]

Yeah that's how I do it, but it's away from LRs own way of cataloging, so my raws stay in their original LR import folder and my processed JPEGs in their actual folder in Windows.

Me too. Don't use LR for any form of cataloguing. To me it is merely a processing facility.

 

[dejongj]

Me too. Don't use LR for any form of cataloguing. To me it is merely a processing facility.

I find that odd, as its core purpose is cataloguing, and whilst processing has got better over the years I'd say they are better tools for that. But hey if it works for you.

Personally I wouldn't get in the habit of using the Reject marking for a different function. I you want to keep them, yet distinguish them I'd use some of the color labels or star rating or combination, or perhaps even attach a keyword to it.

I hybrid as well, import to a certain event but then within will keep some of the date structure. Ultimately I don't actually care where it is on the hard drive as that is the whole purpose of a cataloguing tool that you utilise the meta data to group and find and only have one copy. I find it gets easier when you give in and use it as a cataloguing tool.

 

[odd jim]

I find that odd, as its core purpose is cataloguing, and whilst processing has got better over the years I'd say they are better tools for that. But hey if it works for you.

Personally I wouldn't get in the habit of using the Reject marking for a different function. I you want to keep them, yet distinguish them I'd use some of the color labels or star rating or combination, or perhaps even attach a keyword to it.

I hybrid as well, import to a certain event but then within will keep some of the date structure. Ultimately I don't actually care where it is on the hard drive as that is the whole purpose of a cataloguing tool that you utilise the meta data to group and find and only have one copy. I find it gets easier when you give in and use it as a cataloguing tool.

I wouldn't agree its core purpose is cataloguing, I mean, its called "Lightroom"...

As for using it as a cataloguing tool, I just don't like it that way. It's structure revolves around dates, and what if you decide, at some point, to use a different piece of software to catalogue?

 

[sirch]

I find that odd, as its core purpose is cataloguing, and whilst processing has got better over the years I'd say they are better tools for that. But hey if it works for you.

Personally I wouldn't get in the habit of using the Reject marking for a different function. I you want to keep them, yet distinguish them I'd use some of the color labels or star rating or combination, or perhaps even attach a keyword to it.

I hybrid as well, import to a certain event but then within will keep some of the date structure. Ultimately I don't actually care where it is on the hard drive as that is the whole purpose of a cataloguing tool that you utilise the meta data to group and find and only have one copy. I find it gets easier when you give in and use it as a cataloguing tool.

I know what you are getting at but my original point was that I do want to delete the RAWs after a few tweaks and a JPG export, so reject seems like a good choice. Also some of us have been around computers long enough to know that outside of Mainframes, the only thing that has survived is the directory structure/filename approach.

 

[dejongj]

I wouldn't agree its core purpose is cataloguing, I mean, its called "Lightroom"...

As for using it as a cataloguing tool, I just don't like it that way. It's structure revolves around dates, and what if you decide, at some point, to use a different piece of software to catalogue?

I have. Move from Aperture to Lightroom. It is not an issue. Easily rebuild with the metadata available.

I know what you are getting at but my original point was that I do want to delete the RAWs after a few tweaks and a JPG export, so reject seems like a good choice. Also some of us have been around computers long enough to know that outside of Mainframes, the only thing that has survived is the directory structure/filename approach.

Hmm sorry but I disagree. I'm old enough and have the experience but have also moved with the times. And directory structure and filenames is decidedly old hat.

 

[Phil V]

I know what you are getting at but my original point was that I do want to delete the RAWs after a few tweaks and a JPG export, so reject seems like a good choice. Also some of us have been around computers long enough to know that outside of Mainframes, the only thing that has survived is the directory structure/filename approach.

You're not the only old one.
But we both speak English, and 'Reject' means get rid of, it doesn't mean 'select to tweak and convert to JPEG', there's other ways of marking, why use one that has an actual other use?

When I worked in IT, there were a rash of users who would 'delete' their emails, but never empty their 'deleted items' just in case they wanted access to one of their old emails. The analogy I used was chucking stuff in the bin but then not allowing the cleaner to empty the bin. It sound stupid because it is stupid. Everyone reading this thread knows what 'reject' means, why confuse matters by giving it a different meaning? BTW I do appreciate there's only you should be concerned with this, but still

 

[dejongj]

You're not the only old one.
But we both speak English, and 'Reject' means get rid of, it doesn't mean 'select to tweak and convert to JPEG', there's other ways of marking, why use one that has an actual other use?

When I worked in IT, there were a rash of users who would 'delete' their emails, but never empty their 'deleted items' just in case they wanted access to one of their old emails. The analogy I used was chucking stuff in the bin but then not allowing the cleaner to empty the bin. It sound stupid because it is stupid. Everyone reading this thread knows what 'reject' means, why confuse matters by giving it a different meaning? BTW I do appreciate there's only you should be concerned with this, but still

Until that one day the cleaner is ill and the replacement cleaner actually does empty the bin Been there and done it unfortunately.

 

[Musicman]

You're not the only old one.
But we both speak English, and 'Reject' means get rid of, it doesn't mean 'select to tweak and convert to JPEG', there's other ways of marking, why use one that has an actual other use?

When I worked in IT, there were a rash of users who would 'delete' their emails, but never empty their 'deleted items' just in case they wanted access to one of their old emails. The analogy I used was chucking stuff in the bin but then not allowing the cleaner to empty the bin. It sound stupid because it is stupid. Everyone reading this thread knows what 'reject' means, why confuse matters by giving it a different meaning? BTW I do appreciate there's only you should be concerned with this, but still

That, and the using Lightroom only to edit and not catalog files reminds me of the MD of a company I was helping out when I was freelance IT consultant. He was using his word processor to write letters, as you do, but then, after printing it out, rather than save the file, he deleted all the text and started again on the next letter. Never kept anything on disk. As far as he was concerned, it was just a jazzed-up replacement for a typewriter.

As an aside, the way I discovered this was when I asked him to close a window and he didnt know how. It turned out he'd never needed to do that as his WP application launched with a new document on startup. Email was all dealt with in a single pane.

He did his stuff and then just shut it down at the end of the day.