LR rejects large files

On 2015-09-22 20:52:06 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:25:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2015092213230889775-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

What do you mean by "libraries"? All images uploaded to LR will be
viewable in the Library module, and there is only one Library module.

wrong. lightroom supports as many libraries as you want.

As many Catalogues as you want in the single Library module. Do not
confuse Catalogues with the Library module of which there is only one.
Within those catalogues you can have the primary folders and
Collections and Smart Collections which are managed within a particular
Catalogue.

lightroom calls it a catalog. iphoto/photos calls it a library.

Since your comment was in reply to my reply to Peter on the subject of
Lightroom, exactly how does iPhoto fit into this?

If you can show that Lightroom offers as many Library modules as you
want, please do so. If not, "i was wrong" is in order.

Good luck with that. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-22 20:57:07 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2015-09-22 16:42, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-22 20:25:46 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015092213230889775-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

What do you mean by "libraries"? All images uploaded to LR will be
viewable in the Library module, and there is only one Library module.

wrong. lightroom supports as many libraries as you want.

As many Catalogues as you want in the single Library module. Do not
confuse Catalogues with the Library module of which there is only one.
Within those catalogues you can have the primary folders and
Collections and Smart Collections which are managed within a particular
Catalogue.

lightroom calls it a catalog. iphoto/photos calls it a library.

So? Are we discussing Lightroom or something which should never be
mentioned again, iPhoto/Photos?

This is the first, and I hope only time we will hear of iPhoto/Photos in
this thread.

Or any other. Hang on. Last word he

IAC, Photos has been useful for me to put photos onto my iPhone. Not
many mind you ...

I use Lightroom Mobile and/or PhotoTransfer App for that.
http://www.phototransferapp.com
http://www.adobe.com/products/lightroom-mobile.html

Photos shot on my iPhone are also added to a Collection within
Lightroom Mobile, then synced to my desktop. No iCloud and no Photos
involved.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-09-22 16:54, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:42:26 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 16:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:11:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 14:52, PeterN wrote:
On 9/22/2015 10:55 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-22 10:38, PeterN wrote:
I finally dipped in my toe and imported my first group of 34,000 +
images into LR. All seemed to go well until at the end I got an error
message stating that 2 files were too large to import. Unfortunately,
the message did not identify the files. In the past there were several
files that were too large to save, and I fixed that by reducing the
pixels on the longest side. (IIRC they were panos.)
Has anyone here run into that. If I am going to use LR it would be nice
have them all.

The largest image space for LR is 65535 x 65535 pixels. Which at base
would suggest 3 x 65535^2 bytes (uncompressed). 12 GB.

Could it be you inadvertently included files that are not in fact images?


While anything can happen, I doubt it. This images were all in folder
created in Bridge. I painstakingly renamed each of the folders so I
could use LR's find functionality. One of my thoughts is to do a global
for any .psb files.

Just sort your directories by file size. Anything that is unusually
large will stand out. Indeed you may have a utility that already
specializes in locating unusually large, dormant files. (I used to have
such on Windows - can't recall the name).

Re-importing, as I suggested, would be the easier route. You don't
actually re-import anything, though. You just use that method to see
which files are not greyed out and then cancel.

Could be. Absent that - since the error message refers to file size as
the error, I'd look into the file properties.

I know. The objective, though, is to just identify the two files, and
my suggestion does that in one swoop. After he knows what the two
files are, he can take whatever steps necessary to make them
compliant.

Quibble: you assume it will. We have no real idea what really (is)
happened/happens/happening on his computer.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:00:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/22/2015 11:56 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:15:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-09-22 14:38:20 +0000, PeterN said:

I finally dipped in my toe and imported my first group of 34,000 +
images into LR. All seemed to go well until at the end I got an error
message stating that 2 files were too large to import. Unfortunately,
the message did not identify the files. In the past there were several
files that were too large to save, and I fixed that by reducing the
pixels on the longest side. (IIRC they were panos.)
Has anyone here run into that. If I am going to use LR it would be nice
have them all.

I have not experienced the issue you describe, but I certainly don't
produce files close to the size you seem to generate.

What file types are you trying to import?
I suspect the issue might lie with you importing two of your fat files.

I have a feeling that you, in your own inimitable way, are trying to do
too much at once.

I would start by importing your NEFs first, then import smaller batches
of completed project files, directing those to specific locations/LR
Folders.

He's already started, and suggestions about what he should have done
are not really helpful. As I understand his problem, all he wants to
do now is to determine which two files weren't imported and change
those two files so they can be imported.

That's a simple task as I explained in another post.

If he does have more files to import, I would not - emphatically not -
suggest importing by type of file format. He, presumably, has some
sort of system in place wherein files are contained in folders and
sub-folders.

I still have about another 50k files to import. As I said to the duck, I
have no problem redoing the import if it will probably make life easier
in the future. (Photo life with LR, that is.)

Previously you mentioned having already imported 34,000 files. That
plus 50k files = a hell of a lot of images. Do you ever discard any?


I'd import by-folder, or by-folders. LR can import a large number of
files at a time, but it's not going to make the process much more time
consuming or complex by doing it in chunks.

I would give consideration to the present system before importing. LR
is going to replicate that system, so there might be reasons to
consolidate folders as sub-folders under a master folder before
import.

My own system is a master folder for Family and a master Folder for
Hobby, and sub-folders by year. I'm not recommending this, but it
does work for me.



--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

PeterN:
While anything can happen, I doubt it. This images were all in folder
created in Bridge. I painstakingly renamed each of the folders so I
could use LR's find functionality. One of my thoughts is to do a global
for any .psb files.

One does not find images in LR by means of painstakingly renaming
folders. One selects related images in bulk within LR and assigns
keywords.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Davoud
wrote:

While anything can happen, I doubt it. This images were all in folder
created in Bridge. I painstakingly renamed each of the folders so I
could use LR's find functionality. One of my thoughts is to do a global
for any .psb files.

One does not find images in LR by means of painstakingly renaming
folders. One selects related images in bulk within LR and assigns
keywords.

yep. some people here don't understand how lightroom works.

One does not find images in LR by means of painstakingly renaming
folders. One selects related images in bulk within LR and assigns
keywords.

Tony Cooper:
Right. LR will find them as long as they are not moved outside of LR
from where they were when imported.

However, going through his images and putting them in folders, and the
folders in a location that will remain a good location, can make
things more manageable in the future.

Having an organized base to work with can be a time-saver in the
future. LR will always locate a file that has not been moved, no
matter how disorganized the system, but a haphazard arrangement can
lead to moving or deleting folders outside of LR without realizing
that the action causes a LR problem. It can result in a lot of extra
work.

An organized base might be a folder named "Lightroom" with sub-folders
with any name at all. I use the date: "2015-09-22" for today's
pictures, but that isn't necessary. "Folder 1," Folder 2..." would be
just as useful. In fact, no sub-folders at all would work equally well;
if I were starting again I might just dump all of the photos into the
"Lightroom" folder. I can find any photo almost instantaneously from
within LR without reference to the subfolder. The main thing is to not
move photos outside of LR, and to give the photos meaningful filenames
and assign meaningful keywords. With my photos named in that way I
*could* easily search with Spotlight to find a desired folder, but I
don't do that because, to re-phrase, I never make the mistake of
manipulating my LR photos outside of LR.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Davoud
wrote:

One does not find images in LR by means of painstakingly renaming
folders. One selects related images in bulk within LR and assigns
keywords.

Tony Cooper:
Right. LR will find them as long as they are not moved outside of LR
from where they were when imported.

However, going through his images and putting them in folders, and the
folders in a location that will remain a good location, can make
things more manageable in the future.

Having an organized base to work with can be a time-saver in the
future. LR will always locate a file that has not been moved, no
matter how disorganized the system, but a haphazard arrangement can
lead to moving or deleting folders outside of LR without realizing
that the action causes a LR problem. It can result in a lot of extra
work.

An organized base might be a folder named "Lightroom" with sub-folders
with any name at all. I use the date: "2015-09-22" for today's
pictures, but that isn't necessary. "Folder 1," Folder 2..." would be
just as useful. In fact, no sub-folders at all would work equally well;
if I were starting again I might just dump all of the photos into the
"Lightroom" folder. I can find any photo almost instantaneously from
within LR without reference to the subfolder. The main thing is to not
move photos outside of LR, and to give the photos meaningful filenames
and assign meaningful keywords. With my photos named in that way I
*could* easily search with Spotlight to find a desired folder, but I
don't do that because, to re-phrase, I never make the mistake of
manipulating my LR photos outside of LR.

exactly correct, and at least someone here understands the benefits of
lightroom and why direct file system access is primitive.

Tony Cooper:
...
What I think is most important is to organize and have system, but the
particulars of the system should be based on the user's preferences.

Yes, I agree that that is the bottom line.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

An organized base might be a folder named "Lightroom" with sub-folders
with any name at all. I use the date: "2015-09-22" for today's
pictures, but that isn't necessary. "Folder 1," Folder 2..." would be
just as useful. In fact, no sub-folders at all would work equally well;
if I were starting again I might just dump all of the photos into the
"Lightroom" folder. I can find any photo almost instantaneously from
within LR without reference to the subfolder. The main thing is to not
move photos outside of LR, and to give the photos meaningful filenames
and assign meaningful keywords. With my photos named in that way I
*could* easily search with Spotlight to find a desired folder, but I
don't do that because, to re-phrase, I never make the mistake of
manipulating my LR photos outside of LR.

exactly correct, and at least someone here understands the benefits of
lightroom and why direct file system access is primitive.

Thank you. I'll share the compliment because I use a very similar
system and have stated similar views.

then why do you argue any time i say something similar?

because you're an argumentative asshole.