# Backing up Photos in LR to External Drive



## PuppyDogMom (Sep 30, 2015)

Greetings! I''m trying to figure out how to backup the photos that I have in LR to an external drive. Needless to say, I can't figure out how to do that. Is there a way to do a backup without deleting the photos from LR? And is it simple or complex?


----------



## DGStinner (Sep 30, 2015)

You can have Lightroom create a second copy on import.  For images already imported, you could use Finder to copy the images to the external drive.  Assuming they're all under one main parent folder, just drag that folder from its current location to the external drive.
The other import thing to back up is your catalog.  Lightroom should be prompting you to back this up every time you close out of Lightroom, unless you've changed the setting.
Since you're on a Mac, are you using Time Machine to perform regular backups?  If so, just make sure your images and Lightroom catalog are included.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Sep 30, 2015)

Or select all photos and choose 'Export original'.


----------



## PuppyDogMom (Sep 30, 2015)

For some reason, I cannot drag any folders to the external drive. LR won't let me do that. Didn't know that I could import into two separate places. I'll try to do that the next time I import photos.

LR is prompting me to back up the catalog. However, I haven't done that. Can I back up to the external drive? If so, that will solve my problem.

I am on a Mac, but I don't use Time Machine.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Sep 30, 2015)

Don't do it in Lightroom. Simply do it in the Finder.

When Lightroom prompts you for the catalog backup, you can choose a distination. That does not 'solve your problem' however, because a catalog backup is simply that: a catalog backup. It's not a backup of your images.

START USING TIME MACHINE!


----------



## PuppyDogMom (Sep 30, 2015)

Got it regarding Finder. Never thought about that.

Did back up when closed LR and discovered that it was just a catalog and that in order to get to the images, it took me right back to LR.

Guess I should use Time Machine, although I'm not familiar with it.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Sep 30, 2015)

Time Machine is as easy as it gets. You connect a disk, turn on Time Machine and it will ask you if it should use that disk. Say yes. That's it.

If you ever need to retrieve something from a Time Machine backup, go to its folder in the Finder and start Time Machine. You'll see a kind of stacks of that folder window in time. Go back in time till you found the file, select it and click 'Restore'.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201250


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Sep 30, 2015)

Hi Emily,
All above advice is good.
But you have to banish from your mind that 'Your images are in Lightroom'- they are NOT!
The Lightroom Catalog is a database- it is a created list of your photos that exist somewhere else in your computer. You create this database when you 'Import'.
You have to take control of preserving copies/backups of your original image files, Lightroom does not do this!
So 'Time Machine' is a great way for Mac users.


----------



## PuppyDogMom (Oct 1, 2015)

It's all making sense to me now. Thanks much for all of your help. Images have been backed up, and Time Machine has done its thing!


----------



## rctneil (Oct 3, 2015)

I-See-Light said:


> Hi Emily,
> All above advice is good.
> But you have to banish from your mind that 'Your images are in Lightroom'- they are NOT!
> The Lightroom Catalog is a database- it is a created list of your photos that exist somewhere else in your computer. You create this database when you 'Import'.
> ...



This definitely seems to be the thing that most users do not understand. I normally try to explain that it works in a similar way to iTunes. Just a database of references to something stored elsewhere and it is your responsibility to back up both the database AND the referenced items.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 3, 2015)

Because so many people do not understand this, I think Adobe made a big mistake. What they should have done (and of course it is still possible to change Lightroom like this) is to let Lightroom create an 'Images' folder right inside the Lightroom (catalog) folder. A little like Aperture's 'managed originals'. Of course people would still have the choice to change that, but this would be the default. And if people do indeed use Lightroom in default mode, Lightroom should then offer to backup the entire Lightroom folder (to another disk, of course), not just the catalog file.

The only disadvantage would be that this would make this forum a whole lot quieter...


----------



## rctneil (Oct 3, 2015)

An option to use a managed or Manual mode in Lightroom would be excellent. I guess having it managed and working somewhat like Apple's Photos.app does now and bundle everything inside one .photoslibrary would make it much much easier for people to understand but using manual (the situation we have now) is soooo much more flexible. (Which is great!)


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 3, 2015)

I'm not suggesting that it would work like Apple Photos. No mysterious packages that hide your images from sight. But an 'Images' folder inside the Lightroom folder where Lightroom would store your images by default (if you don't change the destination default) would make Lightroom a lot more understandable for a lot of people. A lot! And a proper backup option that would force you to use another disk and then would backup the whole folder, would save a lot of problems. A whole lot!

Right now, about half the questions in this forum seem to be related to this one way or another. People come here because they have a corrupt catalog (and no backup), or because their catalog seems to have disappeared (and no backup), or because they suddenly can't find their images (and no backup), or because their disk crashed (and no backup) or whatever that could have been solved easily if only they had a backup. Adobe should ask itself the following question: "If half your customers don't understand how to use your product, what does that tell you about your product?"


----------



## Rose Weir (Oct 3, 2015)

Excellent summarization of the 'catalog, backup, files situation.
Love the final sentence ' Ask the following question:'
Now that self assessment could also be applied to Microsoft currently <GRIN!> but you wouldn't be experiencing Win10 
Rose


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Oct 3, 2015)




----------



## swiftflo (Dec 9, 2015)

I-See-Light said:


>



I do not see this screen in my copy of LR CC. I have made the mistake of only backing up the catalog and as I have just had a iMac crash I have now lost over 300 photo's. So where and how can I backup my images to a external back disk. (Should add that I am running time machine but I could not find my photo's on that.


----------



## clee01l (Dec 9, 2015)

swiftflo said:


> I do not see this screen in my copy of LR CC. I have made the mistake of only backing up the catalog and as I have just had a iMac crash I have now lost over 300 photo's. So where and how can I backup my images to a external back disk. (Should add that I am running time machine but I could not find my photo's on that.


This additional entry may have been added by a Plug-in.  Perhaps I-See-Light can tell us what generated the dialog.  

If Time Machine runs continuously in the background AND you have not excluded the folder that contains your imported image files, your missing 300 images are still in TimeMachine.


----------



## rob211 (Dec 9, 2015)

While options are pretty much always a Good Thing, I don't see the need for a managed library of photo files. If an application goes that route, it HAS to hide it, otherwise it gets borked very quickly by user changes in the filesystem and causes even more confusion. In any case, it's super easy to just have Lr create essentially the same folder structure that all these library-makers create, since they are basically date-based. Anyone using a systemwide backup strategy then has their pictures backed up, and if they don't they deserve what happens to them. Adding an Lr utility to do photo backup would make things more complicated, and wouldn't add anything to say running TM on the Mac.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe this dialog was a suggestiln of how Lightroom could help you make a backup of your photos as well. It is not a real dialog extended by a real plug-in.


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Dec 9, 2015)

swiftflo said:


> I do not see this screen in my copy of LR CC. I have made the mistake of only backing up the catalog and as I have just had a iMac crash I have now lost over 300 photo's. So where and how can I backup my images to a external back disk. (Should add that I am running time machine but I could not find my photo's on that.



Yep! Totally fake, a mock up!
It was my idea for Adobe to adopt such an option. It would make image backup so much easier for a multitude of Lightroom users.

So currently we must still take responsibility for doing image backups without the help of Lightroom- See the post #8 above.


----------



## davidedric (Dec 10, 2015)

Yes, but.....

Depending on where you write your changes, Catalogue and Image backups are quite different.

I write changes ONLY to the Catalogue (let's not revisit that debate right now ☺  ), so as a result my image files need backing up only once.  You can achieve this by making a second copy on Import, of course).   So, for me, the dialogue would only make sense if it was something like. "Backup new images since last backup", or something.  If you choose to have .xmp files I guess it's different.

Still no substitute for a proper backup strategy, mind!

Now off to play with my newly delivered Panasonic G7 

Dave


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 10, 2015)

Because backing up photo files is no different than backing up my other critical files such as documents, reports, spreadsheets, etc., it makes far more sense to me to run an all-inclusive backup program (ChronoSync plus Time Machine in my case) than to have individual applications such as Lightroom backing up their part of the whole. There are enough backup utilities available, without wasting Lightroom resources trying to create another partial backup solution. 

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## davidedric (Dec 10, 2015)

> Because backing up photo files is no different than backing up my other critical files such as documents, reports, spreadsheets, etc., it makes far more sense to me to run an all-inclusive backup program (ChronoSync plus Time Machine in my case) than to have individual applications such as Lightroom backing up their part of the whole. There are enough backup utilities available, without wasting Lightroom resources trying to create another partial backup solution.



Agreed, Jim, I do the same, though I like to have an on-site back-up as well.  Recovering large volumes of data down my "broad"band would be a pain (I happen to use CrashPlan).   I guess the idea would be to offer a first line safety net for folks who don't want to get involved with that.

Dave


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 10, 2015)

davidedric said:


> Yes, but.....
> 
> Depending on where you write your changes, Catalogue and Image backups are quite different.
> 
> ...



*Every* backup solution would only backup your new (or changed) images. That goes without saying.


----------



## rob211 (Dec 11, 2015)

Folks here need to release that in many many instances the Lr or Ps user isn't the one doing the backup; it would be the business. That's even true in the home.

OTOH, crafting a backup of archived originals from within Lr isn't particularly difficult, although perhaps slightly inefficient. The second copy at import isn't really an archive, but only temporary. Some use a publish service to accomplish archiving; Friedl's collection publisher makes this even simpler. You could have a collection of all the photos you need to archive in a smart collection that updates as you add them, then his plugin publishes them. Or publish the folders using his folder publisher plugin.


----------



## PuppyDogMom (Sep 30, 2015)

Greetings! I''m trying to figure out how to backup the photos that I have in LR to an external drive. Needless to say, I can't figure out how to do that. Is there a way to do a backup without deleting the photos from LR? And is it simple or complex?


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Dec 11, 2015)

I am on Windows-10
I use FreeFileSync to "Mirror" ALL my documents, (Words, Spreadsheets, Music, Pictures, etc) to external drives. ( 1xWD 2tB Raid1 frequently, and 1x Seagate 2tB done monthly). My Lightroom Catalog Backup also writes to the WD Raid every time LR closes. Saving "Configuration" presets makes a defined backup very easy.

Pros:
If my internal C: drive were to fail, I can restore (most) all my files from these very easily- just copy back to their original location on a new working C: drive.

Cons:
I only have 'current version' files backed up! Mirroring does not keep files that get deleted or 'older' versions.
If I 'mirror' to both external drives at the same time, I risk having corrupt files in all 'backups'

I have never used "Second Copy at Import" as it does not mirror the folder structure of imported files, and so is almost useless as a means to easily restore a working Lightroom catalog!


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 12, 2015)

I-See-Light said:


> I have never used "Second Copy at Import" as it does not mirror the folder structure of imported files, and so is almost useless as a means to easily restore a working Lightroom catalog!



But that's not what it is intended for. It's primarily designed as a temporary copy of the contents of the memory card that you are importing from, thus creating two immediate copies of those files which allows the memory card to be ejected and re-used before your "proper" backup process is initiated. Many users will typically run the "proper" backup on a time schedule, e.g. weekly, but will import new photos more frequently....thus the "Second Copy on Import" gives some additional temporary protection against failure of the primary image drive, whilst allowing the memory card(s) to be re-used.

Once the "proper" backup routine has been run, that temporary second copy can be deleted.


----------



## coachejp (Dec 29, 2015)

*Similar problem?*

Transfer from Win 7 desktop via WD Passport (A to WD My Book (Z. When I try to open from program or catalog,I get message Catalog TOO new for this version of LR. Whats up with this message? 

Thank you,HAPPY NEW YEAR


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 29, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> But that's not what it is intended for. It's primarily designed as a temporary copy of the contents of the memory card that you are importing from, thus creating two immediate copies of those files which allows the memory card to be ejected and re-used before your "proper" backup process is initiated. Many users will typically run the "proper" backup on a time schedule, e.g. weekly, but will import new photos more frequently....thus the "Second Copy on Import" gives some additional temporary protection against failure of the primary image drive, whilst allowing the memory card(s) to be re-used.
> 
> Once the "proper" backup routine has been run, that temporary second copy can be deleted.



The interesting thing about this is that this 'proper backup' philosophy is actually flawed, for the following reason. If you make your 'proper' backup(s) from a disk that contains copied files (copied from the memory card, that is), who can guarantee that none of these copies already got corrupted during that copying process? If a file did get corrupted, your 'proper' backups will also contain that corrupted file. The only non-corrupted copy will be your temporary second copy, because that copy was made independently. And now you are going to trash that... 

I never understood why Adobe didn't give us the option to make the second copy to the same folder hierarchy, so it can indeed be used as a real backup and not only as a temporary one.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 30, 2015)

JohanElzenga said:


> The only non-corrupted copy will be your temporary second copy, because that copy was made independently. And now you are going to trash that...
> 
> I never understood why Adobe didn't give us the option to make the second copy to the same folder hierarchy, so it can indeed be used as a real backup and not only as a temporary one.



I don't follow this. Any copy has the potential to be corrupted, and the "second copy" doesn't have immunity in that regard.

I think I do understand why the current "second copy" is that way that it is, and am quite OK with that, but that's probably because I have zero interest in Adobe doing it in any other way. A "proper" backup, to me, goes way beyond the narrow confines of image files....it encompasses ALL of the critical data on my computer systems, and creates multiple copies at the same time. It's the job of dedicated backup utilities, not a photography app such as Lightroom, so tweaking the current "second copy" functionality to enable it to be used as a "real" backup would be, as far as I'm concerned, a waste of development resources. But of course not everyone would agree with me on that, and I know that there's a very long-standing feature request on the official Adobe feedback site which requests exactly what you're asking for. No harm in adding your vote.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> I don't follow this. Any copy has the potential to be corrupted, and the "second copy" doesn't have immunity in that regard.



True, but it's a matter of simple statistics. Let's assume -just for the sake of the argument- that the chance of corruption is 1:100,000. That means that among every 100,000 images, you will have one that is corrupted. You can make one or more backups from that disk, but those backups won't help you. The copy on those backups will be corrupted too. And remember that this is just an average. If you are the unlucky one, you could have several corrupted images in your 100,000 image catalog.

Now let's look at the second copy. The chance that *some* image in that copy will be corrupted is obviously the same 1:100,000. But statistics tell you that the chance that the *same* image is corrupted is 1:100,000x100,000. That is 1:10,000,000,000 and that is so small that it is unlikely that this happens to any photographer. Even if every single person on the planet would use Lightoom, you wouldn't have more than perhaps one or two unlucky people with one corrupted image...

I agree that there is more to a backup system than just your images, but statistically the second copy is your best backup, and all the algorithms for using it as a true backup are already in the import dialog anyway. So why doesn't Adobe let me decide this?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 30, 2015)

I think that all statistics would suggest is that taking more than one backup copy is likely safer than taking just one, not that one is "better" than the other (if the corrupted image is in the second copy, wouldn't that make the prime copy the "best"?). That I can agree with, which is why I do use the "second copy" option.....but having subsequently taken multiple copies when I run my "proper" backup, I'm quite sanguine about trashing that "second copy" (though because i'm quite lazy about that sort of housekeeping, typically the second copy folders will still be available 6 months after they were created).

As to changing the structure of the second copy, I really can't get worked up about it....I'd much rather see development resources deployed elsewhere.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

Sorry Jim, but you don't seem to know much about statistics. If an image gets corrupted during the copy process from the memory card to the hard disk, you can make as many backups from that hard disk as you like, but that won't help you. All your backups will contain the same corruption. The only thing that helps you is another copy *from that memory card*. For the reasons I just outlined.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 30, 2015)

If the image gets corrupted during the copy from the memory card I'll know about it immediately in Lightroom.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

P.S. As for your question if the prime copy wouldn't be the 'best' if there can be a corrupted file in the second copy: Yes, for that one image this is true. But remember your statistics class again. You are unlikely to ever need that particular copy, because the version on the prime disk is not corrupted. The chance that this prime version gets corrupted too (perhaps later) is the same one in ten billion again.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> If the image gets corrupted during the copy from the memory card I'll know about it immediately in Lightroom.



Perhaps you will, perhaps you won't. A severe corruption will show in the thumbnail, so you will indeed see it immediately. But if the corruption is just one line of pixels and you are importing hundreds of images, you may not notice it until after you've trashed your second copy.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 30, 2015)

JohanElzenga said:


> Perhaps you will, perhaps you won't.



I'm pretty confident I would, so let's leave it at that.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

I'm sure you would, but that may not apply to everyone. I sometimes import a thousand images or more on one day, so I'm less confident than you are that I have thoroughly checked all of them before I make my backups. That's why I wished Adobe would have made it easier for us to use the second copy, so I could be more sure. I will indeed leave it at that.


----------



## clee01l (Dec 30, 2015)

coachejp said:


> Transfer from Win 7 desktop via WD Passport (A to WD My Book (Z. When I try to open from program or catalog,I get message Catalog TOO new for this version of LR. Whats up with this message?
> 
> Thank you,HAPPY NEW YEAR


While Jim & Johan are busy discussing the benefits or lack thereof for Making a Second Copy on import", perhaps you can provide a little more detail to your problem.   Could you have opened an older version of LR?  You should only get this message if the catalog file was converted to (say) LRCC/6.3 and you started the LR5.7 app and tried to ope this catalog file.   If you have different versions of LR installed on your PC, clicking on a file with the "lrcat" extension will open the version of LR that Windows has associated with this file type.  If the catalog file was generated by LR6 and the Windows filetype association is still painting to LR5, you will get this message.


----------



## rob211 (Dec 30, 2015)

And BTW, it's not against the rules to use something else to copy off SD cards, archive from said cards, etc. I sometimes use Photo Mechanic, but YMMV. Some check files before erasing the SD card or rotate cards. And since I use DNGs I run integrity checks too. I hadn't thought of it, but when I convert on import it's a way to check the files as I'd assume Lr would barf on a corrupt file, but I haven't had that occur.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 30, 2015)

rob211 said:


> And BTW, it's not against the rules to use something else to copy off SD cards, archive from said cards, etc. I sometimes use Photo Mechanic, but YMMV. Some check files before erasing the SD card or rotate cards. And since I use DNGs I run integrity checks too. I hadn't thought of it, but when I convert on import it's a way to check the files as I'd assume Lr would barf on a corrupt file, but I haven't had that occur.



True, that may be one reason why some people use Photo Mechanic or Image Ingester to import their images. I thought about the DNG route, but I doubt it will protect you in this case. DNG verification can check that an existing DNG file hasn't changed, but I don't think that Lightroom can see during the conversion to DNG if some bits in your proprietary raw data have 'flipped over' during copying. It will only barf if it can't read the raw file at all.


----------



## rob211 (Dec 31, 2015)

JohanElzenga said:


> True, that may be one reason why some people use Photo Mechanic or Image Ingester to import their images. I thought about the DNG route, but I doubt it will protect you in this case. DNG verification can check that an existing DNG file hasn't changed, but I don't think that Lightroom can see during the conversion to DNG if some bits in your proprietary raw data have 'flipped over' during copying. It will only barf if it can't read the raw file at all.


Yes, that does make sense. And it doesn't verify DNGs out of the camera, so one has to "convert" DNG to DNG to set up verification. By this logic, that step wouldn't necessarily alert one to a problem.

The live ingest in PM is pretty great though; it would probably catch stuff you'd only see in culling in Lr.

At the end of the day it's like finding dupes: the best way is to take a look. Takes more time, but the results are usually more reliable.


----------

