# How to change "make second copy" directory structure?



## ptr727 (Aug 2, 2015)

Hi, I've been importing my pictures from camera card using ImageIngester Pro for many years, and I create two matching folders during import, one for later import into LR, and one as the original read-only image backup.
I match the filename and folder structure so I can easily find the original image, in case I mess something up with the editable versions.

I'd like to switch to LR's import exclusively, except I can't figure out how to change the directory structure for the "make second copy" function?
The default naming with spaces and commas and long names makes archiving very difficult, 8.3 naming with no spaces is friendly to all filesystems, spaces and commas and long names only work on some filesystems.
I want a second copy of the image during import, same file and folder name structure, just a different root directory.

Is there any way to change the naming template?
If not, are there plugins that can do the second copy during import with a custom folder specification?

Thank you
P.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 2, 2015)

The purpose of the "Make a Second Copy" function is to provide a _temporary_ backup up of the card contents so that the camera card can be erased and reused. It is only temporary because you should be doing regular system back ups of all of your critical user data including your master image files.  Once your system backup has backed up your master images files, the contents of the "Make a Second Copy" folder is redundant and has served it purpose. 
It is not designed to do what you want and if you think about it, there are other ways to accomplish your goal that are probably more efficient.


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 2, 2015)

I do make backups, but restoring backups of bad data is of no use.
That I why I called out that I make permanent read-only copies of the files in their original unaltered state.

In your supposition that the copy is only of use as a temporary means, then what is the protection value between copy, erase card, erase copy?

A more valuable flow is import, verify all imported files are good, make read-only copy of verified files, now it is safe to delete the source material, this is what ImageIngester and other DAM import apps do.
So, my question is still if there is a way in LR to change the copy folder structure?


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 2, 2015)

IIP is very handy, and quite flexible, and I have continued to use it instead of LR when it comes to backing up images prior to import over the years.  Is there a reason that you do not wish to continue using IIP?  LR alone is just not going to offer you the same features.

--Ken


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 2, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> IIP is very handy, and quite flexible, and I have continued to use it instead of LR when it comes to backing up images prior to import over the years.  Is there a reason that you do not wish to continue using IIP?  LR alone is just not going to offer you the same features.
> 
> --Ken


I do love IIP, but I am always looking to simplify my workflow, and if LR offered a usable image backup function, then I won't need to use IIP.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 3, 2015)

I try to keep things simple as well, and have actually found IIP to simplify my workflow as I use it to rename, backup, and converrt to DNG all with just one command.  I am not sure I could easily do this without IIP as LR just does not support that particular workflow easily, especially having identically named raw and DNG files backed up.  If I eliminated the use of DNG files, then it would simplify things enough to explore an alternate workflow.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## clee01l (Aug 3, 2015)

ptr727 said:


> I do make backups, but restoring backups of bad data is of no use.
> That I why I called out that I make permanent read-only copies of the files in their original unaltered state.
> 
> In your supposition that the copy is only of use as a temporary means, then what is the protection value between copy, erase card, erase copy?
> ...


Lightroom is a non destructive editor.  Your Original Image file remains in that original state.  Your backup copy is the same data as the original. In a normal situation, the original master images file would get backed up one time and never need to be backed up again. If you have to restore from backup. Then it is a simple process of copying the backup file to the original's location.  
A good system backup software app will preserve versions and deleted files. So even if you are using an destructive editor like Photoshop, you should be able to find a version of the backup file that is in a state that existed before the file was changed or deleted. 
"Make a Second Copy" os an optional function included in the Import process.  It has nothing to do with a backup process.  The only backup process included in LR is a snapshot copy periodically of the LR catalog file and even this though misnamed is not a "backup".
I thought I answered your original question in my first reply. "Make a Second Copy" is not designed to do what you want.  DAM tools like LR are not designed to take the place of system backup software.  System backup software is specifically written to proved all of your critical user data files (including images files) from disk failure, data corruption and "stupid user mistakes".  Building that functionality into a DAM tool is redundant and I can not think of any DAM tool that does duplicate the functionality of System backup software.


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 3, 2015)

clee01l said:


> Lightroom is a non destructive editor.  Your Original Image file remains in that original state.  Your backup copy is the same data as the original. In a normal situation, the original master images file would get backed up one time and never need to be backed up again. If you have to restore from backup. Then it is a simple process of copying the backup file to the original's location.
> A good system backup software app will preserve versions and deleted files. So even if you are using an destructive editor like Photoshop, you should be able to find a version of the backup file that is in a state that existed before the file was changed or deleted.
> "Make a Second Copy" os an optional function included in the Import process.  It has nothing to do with a backup process.  The only backup process included in LR is a snapshot copy periodically of the LR catalog file and even this though misnamed is not a "backup".
> I thought I answered your original question in my first reply. "Make a Second Copy" is not designed to do what you want.  DAM tools like LR are not designed to take the place of system backup software.  System backup software is specifically written to proved all of your critical user data files (including images files) from disk failure, data corruption and "stupid user mistakes".  Building that functionality into a DAM tool is redundant and I can not think of any DAM tool that does duplicate the functionality of System backup software.



You keep on telling me why I should not use the feature, that was not my question.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 3, 2015)

ptr727 said:


> You keep on telling me why I should not use the feature, that was not my question.


Actually, I am telling you the the "Make A second Copy" function is not going to be your solution. You need to find something else. I've offered several ways that you can get what you need for secure redundant backup files inside LR and your system backup software solution app.


----------



## rob211 (Aug 3, 2015)

I agree with Cletus.

If I import into Lr and that copies to my boot drive, and then I verify all went well, then my backup will back THAT up, making a copy of the verified files (not read-only, but practically so). Then I delete from the card. I haven't asked Lr to make a copy, but other software did that. And I only backed up verified good imports.

I have both versioned and simple-copy backups. With versioning, if I subsequently change the folder name or file name that change is backed up as well. In a Lr-generated second copy scheme that seems like a potential problem, since THAT change is not backed up. I prefer to have a mutable folder structure, but even if you don't, that folder structure is a source of what may be important information and backing that up is essential, at least to me. That's a big plus of versioning; it's like a non-destructive editor for backups.

By default Lr ADDs information, probably assuming most people use other backup strategies. So you get the "Imported on..." default. Sorta like the automatic smart collection. It's a workflow backup; it added the info of when you imported, since perhaps the capture dates on that card spanned several days and maybe was last used two weeks ago before you got home from a trip. I've used it when I wanted to make sure I had copies of the whole card to give to traveling companions.

I certainly wouldn't object to having Lr have this sort of backup functionality built in, but since I don't always have it running, I don't think I'd use it anyway. And I need to change folder names or move them from time to time. In any case, Lr won't let you do it, except manually, which isn't going to help much.


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 3, 2015)

Ok, look, I get it, you disagree with my trying to use the function, I ask a question, and all I hear is why I should not ask the question, not helping me.

I therefore I assume the answer is no you cannot change file and folder format, and as such I'll keep on using IIP for my workflow that makes copies of the original files.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Aug 3, 2015)

Yep. You're right. The "second copy" folder format can't be changed. 

Personally, I have a home-brewed program that copies the files from the card to two identical directory structures on different volumes. One folder will be subject to an "Add" import, and the other is kept as a permanent archive. After I've looked at the images in LR, I then feel happy about deleting from the card. I suspect that your IIP workflow is similar.


----------



## tspear (Aug 4, 2015)

You can set the root directory name. You cannot change the "imported on January XX, YYYY" folder name.
I use the make second copy, it is part of the backup and integrity system. I leave the poorly named folders from Adobe right where I pointed the root directory.
When I have had to go into the backup folder (caused by my own stupidity corrupting the converted DNG) I had to do a find because there was no practical way to know what was the date of the original import.

Tim


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 4, 2015)

As an IIP user, I do have to say that the "Make a Second Copy" feature could be greatly improved and made much more useful.  Right now, IMHO, it is neither fish nor fowl.  I cannot imagine it would be that hard for Adobe to allow users to create an identical folder of images during the import process if the wished to do so.

--Ken


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 4, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> Right now, IMHO, it is neither fish nor fowl.



I disagree, Ken. I use it on every import, but purely as I believe it was intended to be used, i.e. temporary protection should there be a gap between the memory card(s) being wiped after Import, and before my full backup routine is initiated (and generally speaking there will be a gap as I would probably delay starting the full backup until I'd done the first cull). Used in that way, the present "Imported on....." folder naming scheme makes some sense, though I do wish they would change the date format to numeric only, as that would make it easier to sort chronologically when doing a regular clean-up of those folders.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Aug 4, 2015)

I'm with Ken on this. I know that this function may be intended as a temporary backup only, but how difficult would it be to allow users to change the folder setup, so that _the user_ can decide how to use it?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 4, 2015)

I've no idea how difficult it would be. Do you?

This issue has been discussed regularly over the years, and Adobe is well aware that some users want to use the option in a way that the original designers didn't intend. To date, they've shown no inclination to change it so all you can do is add your vote to the long-standing feature request that I'm sure will be found at the official feedback site.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Aug 4, 2015)

Not much more difficult than let users choose the destination of the backup, I would think.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 4, 2015)

I just checked the feedback site, and found Mark Sirota's original feature request relating to the second copy functionality, which is what the OP was asking for. It was raised at least 5 years ago, and in that time has gathered just 18 votes, so sits at the bottom of page 7 on the ranking list. The Lightroom team isn't big, so they have to prioritise bug fixes and new features....perhaps you and Ken and the OP should head over there to add your vote.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Aug 4, 2015)

I didn't add my vote (and I won't do that now), because for me personally it's not an issue. When I'm on the road, I can live with the present temporary backup. So far I've never needed it anyway. When I'm at home, I use a different backup system, so I don't need Lightroom to do it. That said, I just don't understand why they didn't add that option right from the beginning, that's all.

It's one of those things where you think "Why didn't they do this a bit more logically?", even though it's not a big deal. A good example is the order of the Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks sliders. I'm fine with the present order and I certainly would not want the Lightroom team to spend any time changing it (there are much more important issues), but at the same time I think that an order following left to right in the histogram (so Blacks, Shadows, Highlights, Whites) would have been more logical. At least in my sense of logic.


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 4, 2015)

I added my vote:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photo...port_second_copy_should_be_a_true_second_copy


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 4, 2015)

ptr727 said:


> Hi, I've been importing my pictures from camera card using ImageIngester Pro for many years, and I create two matching folders during import, one for later import into LR, and one as the original read-only image backup.
> I match the filename and folder structure so I can easily find the original image, in case I mess something up with the editable versions.



FWIW, I DO keep my import backups as long term off-the-card backups using Make a Second Copy (in addition to all my normal backups).  I've also tested how I'd restore from them and it's really quite straightforward.  If I only need an odd photo, I know it's going to be in an 'imported on' folder from the capture date or shortly thereafter.  If I need to restore absolutely everything, I can create an empty Lightroom catalog, get LR to copy the files into the same dated folder structure I'd usually use, and then delete that temporary catalog and link my main catalog to those copied backup files.


----------



## rob211 (Aug 4, 2015)

JohanElzenga said:


> I didn't add my vote (and I won't do that now), because for me personally it's not an issue. When I'm on the road, I can live with the present temporary backup. So far I've never needed it anyway. When I'm at home, I use a different backup system, so I don't need Lightroom to do it. That said, I just don't understand why they didn't add that option right from the beginning, that's all.
> 
> It's one of those things where you think "Why didn't they do this a bit more logically?", even though it's not a big deal. A good example is the order of the Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks sliders. I'm fine with the present order and I certainly would not want the Lightroom team to spend any time changing it (there are much more important issues), but at the same time I think that an order following left to right in the histogram (so Blacks, Shadows, Highlights, Whites) would have been more logical. At least in my sense of logic.


I had seen the feedback as well, and didn't add my vote either. I think importing needs help, but this wouldn't be on my list. I'd like Lr to stick to its basic functionality as much as possible. And I want my backup to run more automatically, and in the background. For example, if you back up to a NAS writing second copies there will really slow things down.

I'm kinda curious though; does anyone ever do another import with a separate Lr catalog? We did that a long time ago when we stored some stuff on DVDs, since it was a way to keep track of what was on which DVD. Sort of like what Neofinder does. It wasn't so much a backup as an archive of scanned stuff.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 4, 2015)

Jim Wilde said:


> I disagree, Ken. I use it on every import, but purely as I believe it was intended to be used, i.e. temporary protection should there be a gap between the memory card(s) being wiped after Import, and before my full backup routine is initiated (and generally speaking there will be a gap as I would probably delay starting the full backup until I'd done the first cull). Used in that way, the present "Imported on....." folder naming scheme makes some sense, though I do wish they would change the date format to numeric only, as that would make it easier to sort chronologically when doing a regular clean-up of those folders.



Hi Jim,

I can understand your not having an issue with this feature as it does not conflict with your workflow.  But, for some of us, it is close to being helpful, but not quite there, thus we see threads like this pop up form time to time.  While I will not dive into the details of my workflow, I will say that it involves archiving copies of my images (in an identical folder structure) on two additional drives as part of my "import" process, and as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Adobe's feature does not do that.  So, from my perspective it is a waste of time to even use it since I want to do it once and do it right, and that is why I use IIP.

And while I realize that many of the longer term forum members have become familiar with what I kindly refer to as "Adobe logic", I do suspect that Adobe must takes some pride in its UI's being the modern day versions of HP's RPN.  Yes, if you are "in the club" and understand the logic behind their UI's, you get used to how things are done, but having used a lot of software over the past 30 years, I cannot say that Adobe rises to the top of the pack in user friendliness and/or intuitive operations.  I truly believe that LR could have 100% of its current function and power, but have a new UI that is much more user friendly (and I do not mean "dumbed down"), but then Adobe would no longer have that "uniqueness" that I suspect many of its original authors prided themselves on as they wanted to create a program for "photographers".  I realize that LR is a complex program, but that does not mean that it has to have a complicated UI.  I understand that this may not be a pressing feature for Adobe, probably because people look elsewhere for a workable solution, but I do find it interesting that Adobe sees no issue in giving the folder a different naming scheme, something that even you have even called out as an item in need of change.

Respectfully,

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 4, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> If I need to restore absolutely everything, I can create an empty Lightroom catalog, get LR to copy the files into the same dated folder structure I'd usually use, and then delete that temporary catalog and link my main catalog to those copied backup files.



Hi Victoria,

Would it not be easier if you had an identical folder/file structure that you could just swap out with the damaged working images (whether just a file, a folder, or the entire archive) without having to create a catalog and import images?

--Ken


----------



## ptr727 (Aug 2, 2015)

Hi, I've been importing my pictures from camera card using ImageIngester Pro for many years, and I create two matching folders during import, one for later import into LR, and one as the original read-only image backup.
I match the filename and folder structure so I can easily find the original image, in case I mess something up with the editable versions.

I'd like to switch to LR's import exclusively, except I can't figure out how to change the directory structure for the "make second copy" function?
The default naming with spaces and commas and long names makes archiving very difficult, 8.3 naming with no spaces is friendly to all filesystems, spaces and commas and long names only work on some filesystems.
I want a second copy of the image during import, same file and folder name structure, just a different root directory.

Is there any way to change the naming template?
If not, are there plugins that can do the second copy during import with a custom folder specification?

Thank you
P.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 4, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> I truly believe that LR could have 100% of its current function and power, but have a new UI that is much more user friendly



I'd agree with you there, and looking at how carefully they're working on usability of the mobile apps (more so than the actual features), I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't considered for a future update.  The userbase has changed considerably since "the early days" and Lightroom needs to stay in step with that.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 4, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I'd agree with you there, and looking at how carefully they're working on usability of the mobile apps (more so than the actual features), I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't considered for a future update.  The userbase has changed considerably since "the early days" and Lightroom needs to stay in step with that.



Good to hear.  Although I am sure that some dyed in the wool users will be up in arms if they have to learn a new UI! :disgusted:

--Ken


----------



## rob211 (Aug 4, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> Good to hear.  Although I am sure that some dyed in the wool users will be up in arms if they have to learn a new UI! :disgusted:
> 
> --Ken


That's a not-uncommon problem with very popular software. If you run a big department with tons of people you're trained, and have site licenses for many seats, you don't want everyone having to learn how to do X or Y over again on your dime just cuz a bunch of iPhone users can't figure out sliders 

And as an example of "up in arms" over interface, just look at the angst of the former Aperture users here. The programs were very very similar in function, but those little user conventions made all the difference.

It certainly won't matter much to me if they allow a custom name for the whole directory structure of the second copy. But what's intuitive for some here is counter intuitive for the rest of us; this thread is a great example of that. Some of us can't see why anyone would use the copy at import for anything but what Adobe intended it for; others cannot see why the copy at import shouldn't be a back up solution.

I'd like to see Adobe scrap the whole "import" metaphor it uses. It isn't a useful term, and you can really see that if you've had to deal with people who use Apple products like iPhoto or Aperture, where "import" can be even more ambiguous. The processes are referencing, moving and copying. When you insert a card, you should be presented with options to copy to a directory (or more than one), and then options to reference those copies, rename them, etc. You should be able to see more info about the files on the card, and be able to have different presets and copy/reference options for those files, depending on file attributes. Like all jpegs renamed something, and copied to one location, and RAWs converted to DNG and copied elsewhere. And so on. If the whole "import" process were rethought, it might save a lot of subsequent work in Lr later, and perhaps make it possible to have more options for the multiple copy at import folks.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 5, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> I can understand your not having an issue with this feature as it does not conflict with your workflow.



It's not a matter of me not having an issue with the feature as it doesn't conflict with my workflow, it's more a case of me adapting/developing my workflow around the existing functionality. Big difference. I see a lot of users steadfastly refusing to change the "way they've always worked" in order to work with Lightroom, so they end up fighting against it and complaining about it. And that's fine, that's their choice.....but they surely should realise that Lightroom simply cannot be changed to fit every user's preferred ways of doing things (or if it could, we'd all need Cray super-computers to run it). So the alternatives are pretty simple: either adapt, or find another way to do what we want/need to do within Lightroom, or leave Lightroom for something else. I've adapted where I can, and found other ways (i.e. plug-ins) to do things that Lightroom can't do, which is what you've done using IIP in this particular case (but I've also either put in a feature request for a change, or added my vote to existing feature requests). And that's why I keep encouraging those of you who want the second copy functionality to be changed to go and add your vote...I doubt it will ever change unless there's a much louder message sent to the team, and the feature request system is the best way to achieve that.



> And while I realize that many of the longer term forum members have become familiar with what I kindly refer to as "Adobe logic"...



I trust you include yourself in that grouping, Ken....you've been here a couple of years longer than me!


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 5, 2015)

Hi Jim,

Adaptation is one pragmatic solution, as is seeking a workable solution in another fashion, and I do not necessarily find them to be mutually exclusive as I have adapted to LR in many cases, and used programs like IIP and FastStone IV in others.  I can see being annoyed with a program and wanting to vent in frustration, but fighting with it does seem a bit futile.

And yes, I was including myself in that grouping, but just because I have an understanding of Adobe logic does not necessarily imply that I have "drunk their Kool-Aid".  I understand that a lot of folks depend on using or selling LR and other Adobe related products for a living, and I understand that, but my loyalty lies with the fact that it is a reasonable DAM/raw converter solution.  You can rest assured that I will not be naming my first born Thomas, Jeff or Melissa.  And I should also add that much of my loyalty to LR is due to this forum.  If I had to use Adobe's forum for assistance, I would have dropped the program back at v1.x.  I found it to be a nasty experience when I first considered it for support, and have had no desire to revisit it since.  There may be great information there, but there was way too much ego and arguments for my taste.  Life is too short to put up with people like that if you do not have to.

--Ken


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 5, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> And I should also add that much of my loyalty to LR is due to this forum.  If I had to use Adobe's forum for assistance, I would have dropped the program back at v1.x.


That's lovely to hear Ken, and the place wouldn't be the same without you.


----------



## Replytoken (Aug 5, 2015)

Victoria Bampton said:


> That's lovely to hear Ken, and the place wouldn't be the same without you.



You are quite welcome.  There are only a handful of forums in which I participate, and civility is one of the key requirements for me.  You and the moderators do a great job of setting a very friendly tone, and most of the forum members take that to heart.  While we certainly have lively discussions at times, members almost always seem to give others the benefit of the doubt, and try not to personalize their comments.  I know that some folks have thicker skins and do not mind what passes for discussion at other forums, but I appreciate that they do not feel the need to bring that style of interaction here.  I try to help out as I can, but that sometimes means deferring on answering a question when it is an issue where I know just enough to be dangerous. :tape:

--Ken


----------

