Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.
I’m hopeful that one way or another importing images into multiple catalogs can be made simpler.

Lightroom: Delete Images on Card after Import

I would love to get an option to let LR automatically delete images from the card after they have been successfully imported. Images on the card that have not been imported, are let alone, of course.

It would serve two purposes for me:
1. It would save me deleting the images manually.
2. It would dramatically improve the experience of importing images from one card into different catalogs.

An incremental import of subsets of images on one card into a single catalog (but e.g., different folders) is well supported by the "New Photos" filter in the import dialog. However, when I switch catalogs while downloading images from a card -- because some subset of images on the card needs to go into a different catalog -- the "New Photos" filter no longer works. As a result, I have to remember and wade through a lot of images I already imported into a different catalog.

I realise that deleting images from the card is a sensitive issue. It must not happen prior to having verified that the image indeed has been copied (or converted) to a new location. Picasa supports this double checking.

As a safety net, Lightroom could offer a "restore deleted images" feature that would resurrect deleted files from cards. Users will find such a feature tremendously useful for other occasions as well.

I'd be happy with the following compromises as well:

* The option to delete images after import is available only if one activates a second backup location.

* Images are not deleted but the tracking of which images have already been imported is extended to work across catalogs. A record of what images still need to be imported could be associated with a currently inserted card.
12 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • I’m OK with this idea, but wouldn't use it m'self...
    Hi TK,

    It never ceases to amaze me the different needs people have around importing. I created a related thread to support import actions, so people can take advantage of Lightroom's import infrastructure, but have hooks for special needs/desires. Deleting imported images could easily be one of those import actions.

    In the mean time, you may want to consider an import plugin which does what you want. Please send me a private message if you want details.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I could see a use for this, but with one huge proviso - I'd want byte-for-byte verification to go with it. Just confirming that a file had copied wouldn't confirm that corruption hadn't been introduced in the transfer.
    • view 1 more comment
    • True, but can you imagine how many people would be quick to shout "Adobe deleted my images and they were corrupted"
    • Sure, I fully see the issue. However, people have to accept responsibility. If they choose "Convert to DNG and delete the original RAW file" as an option during import, they could also shout "Adobe deleted my RAW originals and my DNGs are corrupted". Same issue, AFAIC.

      Maybe, the issue becomes less of a problem, if the deletion doesn't happen automatically, but has to be triggered by the user through an "Delete all images on card from Previous Import".

      I don't think this kind of hand holding should be necessary but I'd prefer this manual trigger over having to delete images manually.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m Astonished
    I'm completely against removing this important safeguard. No doubt we'll get a few jumping up and down demanding Adobe give them the silver cutlery to get on and play harakari, and I imagine some will find better reasons than fragmenting control of their workflow across multiple catalogues. The verification would have to pass nuclear industry standards, for what they are worth, before I'd even think it was a half-baked idea.
    • view 12 more comments
    • John - sounding as if you know what you think is not a problem, but sounding as if you speak for all that is sensible Lightroom-wise is. And voicing your opinion in a fashion that seems denigrating to other people's needs/desires fosters negativity and is disrespectful, whether that is your intention or not. Check your attitude man...
    • And that from you??? When you've nothing worth saying, stay quiet. Might be too much to ask, I know.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m an Engineer, woo-woo, chuga-chuga, ........
    TK, I went ahead and voted for this FR/Idea for your sake and those of others with similar needs/desires, even though I don't care about it one way or the other for my own sake...

    I'm willing to let you cross the train track as long as there's no train coming, and your shoes are tied, and you promise to be very careful...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 1
    John, Jim, can you please tell me how such an option increases the risk for a user to lose images?

    What is the normal procedure after images have been imported into Lightroom?

    Are you telling me that you are assuming that all users currently run a byte for byte comparison before they manually delete the images from the card?

    I argue that currently the chances of losing images is *higher* because you might manually delete some images on the card which haven't been imported yet. An automated deletion process should *reduce* the risk, not increase it.

    What is the safe procedure that would be undermined if that option became available?
    The only advantage for the current situation is that Adobe / you could say "Lightroom didn't delete your images, you did". But I don't see the increased safety.

    If you are saying users are too dumb/tired to be allowed to tick that option, you should really deny users to remove / delete images in Lightroom by any means. Deleting an image from within Lightroom can lead to its permanent loss. Are you for removing this feature as well?
    • "What is the normal procedure after images have been imported into Lightroom? "

      Generally, I wait for previews to be rendered, and then I look at the thumbs. If the thumbs could be adequately rendered from the original data, then it's highly likely that the original data is okay.

      I'd be okay with adding this feature under two conditions:

      1) Some sort of strong hash technique is used to check the data automatically.
      2) The method of deleting the data off the cards is to open the imported images in grid mode (possibly using the previously-imported temporary collection), waiting until a render of some sort has been done from the original data, and then opening up something similar to the delete confirmation box while the images are still on the screen - a box with appropriate warnings including the suggestion to have a look at the displayed thumbs. The box must not restrict the user's ability to scroll through the grid.
    • Thanks, Lee Jay. I'd be fine with what you propose.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Do you seriously not see the potential for a user to import from card, have the card cleaned, then have a problem on the computer which loses those imports? Or does something stupid to cause the loss of the imports? Plenty of examples over at lightroomforums.net of users having these kinds of issues, and their only recovery is to go back to the card and re-import. Oops!

    As for the 'normal procedure after images have been imported into Lightroom', I would respectfully suggest there's no such thing. Plenty of different workflows in use: some good, some not so good, and some plain awful. Personally I do NOT reformat my cards until after I have imported (taking a second copy backup on import to an external drive), then got the imports and updated catalog into my normal backup process, which includes getting a copy off-site. Plenty of different approaches, for sure, but deleting the images from the card during import just seems like asking for trouble.
    • view 2 more comments
    • This is the first counter-argument I've heard that seems compelling to me.

      If a faulty reader could result in a bad read of good data, then the backup validation would succeed and good files would be destructively deleted.

      For this to be a problem however, the faulty reader would have to read in the same faulty data twice in a row, and in such a fashion that the faulty data still passes Lightroom's own data integrity scrutiny that occurs upon import.

      I can see that in the manual case, one might have a chance to look at the thumbs before deleting. But doesn't Lightroom detect these bad files shortly after importing - when generating the previews?

      Perhaps a solution that would be more foolproof would be to wait until the previews have been created to delete the files, instead of doing it immediately after import & backup validation.

      And of course as was already mentioned, if Lightroom is able to generate a successful preview, and backup validation succeeds, but the user would be able to detect something wrong that the software couldn't and so files were deleted by software that wouldn't have been by user, there is still card recovery software...
    • Victoria, I realise that user mistakes are not the only source for import problems; I was just replying to one of the points Jim made.

      I'd be fine with a manual triggering of the deletion of images on the card after one had a look at the previews (the rendered ones, not the previews contained in files).

      In principle, however, the problem isn't as big as it appears. After the images on the card have been deleted, they are not gone. It is very easy to bring them back again, provided the card is not written on. A "recover card" feature integrated into LR would be most convenient, but there are also free software solutions available that could be used to restore a card, should it become necessary. We are really talking about exceptional situations, aren't we?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Between import and first backup cycle the newly imported files are vulnerable: software corruptions, catastrophic hardware failures, or plain and simple user error. Take your pick, we've seen them all. Because of that vulnerability I maintain that it makes no sense at all to give an unsuspecting user the ability to take away his/her ultimate fall-back. That is my opinion, you can disagree all you want but it isn't going to change that.

    Do I have concrete links to a lightroomforums.net thread....not easily to hand, but there are threads over there that I have participated in where the card was the only recourse...you are more than welcome to come over and trawl through my posts looking for them. Or you could just take my word.

    Thank you for your final 'note', though I did actually state in my earlier post that I use that facility every time I import. Yes it offers some protection, but still not sufficient in my view to justify wiping the card during import.
    • Jim, thanks for your input.

      I disagree that the user you are talking about would be "unsuspecting". The user would have had to confirm a warning dialogue (either when choosing the option once, or -- if it has to be -- before they remove the images).

      The ultimate fall-back would not really be taken away as it is very easy to recover deleted images from a card, provided the card has not been written to in the meantime.

      I take your word regarding users having had to resort to the card again. Yet, we are talking about quite rare situations here, right? If my card reader played up once, I'd replace it immediately.

      BTW, I was aware that you personally use the second backup option. My use of "you" was mean in a general sense, as in "one".

      Once Lightroom has checked previews can be generated from the files, has compared them to images on the card (hash code or byte-for-byte comparison), made a backup, and imported them, I'd be fine with the immediate deletion of the images on the card (knowing that I could get back to them anyhow). If someone still thinks this would be a too haphazard approach, they need not tick the option in the preferences.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 3
    If Lightroom can generate a successful preview of the imported images and backup validates, they should be safe to delete, and in the rare case that the user would have been able to discover a problem before deleting that the software couldn't before deleting, there's always card recovery software.

    So it really should boil down to personal preference, in my opinion.

    Delete manually if it makes you feel safer, or otherwise works out better for you, or have software delete if it is a pre-requisite to optimizing your workflow, and you are willing to take what are really very small chances.

    Summary:
    =======
    It may actually be safer to let the software decide when to delete, rather than the user. But both options should be supported, in my opinion.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m wowed
    TK said: "As a safety net, Lightroom could offer a "restore deleted images" feature that would resurrect deleted files from cards. Users will find such a feature tremendously useful for other occasions as well. "

    Might even be worthy of a separate FR/Idea, although since I already have a 3rd party utility for it, I shan't bring it up. I'll just say they do work extremely well. They can simply recover recently deleted photos, or even recover files from many shoots ago, *after* dozens of reformats - amazing really...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 3
    I'm not sure I can add much to this lengthy debate here and elsewhere, but from my perspective:-

    • I have never (that I am aware of) lost an image from a faulty import or disk crash immediately after import.

    • I have, however, accidentally deleted images I thought were imported but weren't.

    • whatever the pros and cons of doing it one way or another, I cannot understand why Adobe insists on treating users of a piece of professional software like they need to be hand held like this. Allow the option (with warnings if really necessary) and let people do their thing and take the consequences.



    For people who do want to delete after import, there is a reasonably straightforward way to do this (at least on LR3.4/MacOS).

    1. set up and save an import preset the way you want it, but importing from e.g. files on your main disk so you can select 'move'

    2. when you want to import from a memory card, select the DCIM folder in the card under 'files', not in 'devices'.

    3. the import preset will probably show (edited) after it - reselect the original preset

    4. none of the copy to dng/copy/move/add buttons show as selected, and you still can't click on 'move', but underneath it should say 'move photos to new location... etc'

    5. click on 'import'



    There may be other permutations of this principle which will work, but that's what worked for me.

    Hopefully Adobe won't flag this as a bug and 'fix' it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    I've always heard the mantra that rather than deleting the card on the computer, you should format it in the camera instead for various safety-related reasons. That's what I do, after I've verified that the images have been copied to two locations on hard drives.

    That said, most other import programs have the function you're asking for. I think Nikon Transfer has it. I don't think the omission from Lightroom is a safeguard; it is simply that Adobe probably has a different workflow in mind than the one you propose (and this time they agree with me; maybe it's just a bug that will be "fixed" soon).
    • view 6 more comments
    • I see what you are saying TK, perhaps people have jumped to some wrong conclusions and that's what's stuck - wouldn't be the first time. - Cheers.
    • The recommendation is a bit dated, I believe. I think it stems from poor filesystem implementations at the edges -- implementers did a good job with things like format and read and write, but did less well with lesser-used functions like delete, rename, etc. You could trust your camera to do a good job with format and write, but couldn't trust it as far with delete. So it's safest to treat the card as a format-and-create device in the camera and a read-only device in the computer.

      Whether those concerns are well-founded today is unknown to me, but the resulting workflow is excellent for most purposes. It promotes data integrity in a strong way and is not inconvenient for the vast majority. So regardless of the origins, it has become dogma.

      In this thread, TK has suggested a rare use case for which for which this doesn't work well -- he wants to import a subset of the images into one catalog, and a different subset into another. Many photographers solve this by using a different card for each shoot, but if that wasn't done at shooting time there's no good workaround in LR today.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Mark, you write "...he wants to import a subset of the images into one catalog, and a different subset into another. Many photographers solve this by using a different card for each shoot,...".

    It is not always possible to solve this problem by using different cards. Say you have a day out with the family and take photos of family members and also macro shots of flowers for your photography group in an interleaved fashion. It is not practical to change the card every time you see a different photo opportunity.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Try importing the card in a single step into a master catalogue and then farm the pictures out to different catalogues. Would that be more work? It seems like it would be exactly the same amount of work but safer.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 1
    I've read many of these discussions on about 9 different threads over the years and understand other's points, but still am looking for a true MOVE (with delete) option in Lightroom.

    Personally I prefer the convenience (and trust automated proceedures) in having LightRoom copy images to two separate drives (with verification) and then mark the source images as deleted (i.e., possible to restore with some hassle) over a manual human process. Provide warnings, sure, but don't prejudge my workflow!

    Manually deleting images and formatting cards is laborious and error prone for me. (I could easily miss partial success, such as a full hard drive, whereas software wouldn't mistake this.)

    Rob Cole, you mentioned a way to create this functionality at the start fo this thread. I'd love to hear more details.
    • John - I sent you an email.

      Be aware: 'RC Importer' does *not* validate imported file nor backup byte-for-byte nor even size-wise before deleting. It *does* check that the photo was successfully copied and imported by Lightroom *and* successfully copied to backup, before deleting. But a successful copy is determined soley by copy status as reported - does not double-check data.

      But, so far in my plugin development career and as plugin user - number of times copy status was good but copy wasn't: zero. - not sayin' it isn't possible, just sayin' it hasn't happened yet...

      For comparison purposes only: number of human errors inadvertently deleting files that shouldn't have been: more than zero ;-}

      Rob
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m not you.
    Just a reminder: If ImportActions are implemented, a simple action could be implemented to delete files post import (after thorough validation). Code for deletion would not even exist if user did not explicitly install/wire-up the action. No option, no code, no possibility to oppsidentally authorize deletion, except for people who want it. And, Adobe would not have to do anything more, nor take any responsibility...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m concerned
    2
    Popular photo management tools (Picasa, iPhoto, etc.) do this and it actually introduces corruption to the card after a while. After several months, an oft-used 4GB card can be reduced to only a few hundred MB of useable space.

    I'm an IT guy and I've had to train my users to NOT use this function on those applications, but rather get into the practice of formatting the memory card in the camera itself after import. We have not had any issues since implementing this practice.

    I would strongly advise AGAINST implementing this feature. It's unnecessarily introduces problems into the process.
    • With all due respect, but the idea that file deletion necessarily requires card corruption is nonsense.

      Maybe your users were pulling cards out of readers without properly ejecting them, I don't know.

      In two years of card usage, I've never formatted the card once in the camera. I only delete files using Windows Explorer. I have, of course, never had a problem, and, of course, still have access to the full capacity of the card.
    • I too have not had problems. I almost never format my cards, and I shoot a lot (900,000 photos in my catalog). I always move my files off my card using windows explorer, and there is no reduction in card capacity or file system issues.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    Presumably Adobe engineers could get the deletion process done right - as Mark Sirota notes above. Properly done, file systems should NOT consume an ever growing portion of a disk drive.

    I recently had a card with issues reading. If Lightroom woudl have marked the properly read images as deleted would have been super helpful - now I have another 20-30 minute project to do a manual compare process. Life is too short!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I've recently switched to a delete-after-import workflow (using an import plugin instead of Lightroom's native import dialog box), and in my case, following a confirmation prompt, and I *really* like it. Its sorta like getting a tiny pebble out of your shoe - ya don't always realize how much its been bothering you until you get it out ;-}

    I assume TK is correct - that it won't cause any technical problems.

    If TK is not correct, I sure hope Adobe comments somehow somewhere: "We don't support delete-after-import due to risk of increased problems / decreased reliability...". As it stands, its hard for me to imagine any other explanation for not supporting this feature other than "we just haven't gotten around to it yet...".

    Personally, I see this feature coupled with another feature: image validity checking.

    Here's how I would like it to work:
    - Lightroom imports files and checks validity as best it can (which in the case of some faulty cards/readers, may be less than perfect), and notifies user.
    - User double-checks that all imported images are acceptable (don't have tell-tale signs of image corruption), and provides his-or-her (retractable) stamp of approval.
    - Lightroom deletes all images from card that have been approved by both software and user, *and* stores check-codes for those images (in the catalog, if not DNG).
    - Any image corruption in the future will be detected.

    This would be optimal for me. TK probably wants the intermediate prompt to be optional. And, of course, nobody would have to use this feature if they did not want to.

    -R
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m amused
    Can not move from Camera during import with Lightroom 3.2. Feature? I submit that it is not! Please add this to improve workflow!

    This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled
    Can not move photos from camera with Lightroom - Feature, Bug or Bad Idea?.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I’m annoyed
    Please. Please add this feature (which by the way used to exist until LR 2.something).

    Do you consider your users too dumb to be able to decide whether they want to take the risk? And, by the way, what risk is there? I can simply cut & paste the files under Windows, has Microsoft ever considered removal of this feature because of security concerns and demanded that you copy, check each file and delete the originals manually?

    This is so stupid, really!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    I agree, this feature needs to exist.
    While Adobe may think it is safer to get us to manually delete or format the card, I think it is safer for Lightroom to do it. I know it is only going to delete the files it has imported (or tried to), and I can always go back to the card and recover deleted files if need be anyway.
    My memory is definitely not as reliable as code, I could end up formatting a card thinking I have imported, going out and filling it up, then finding out I didn't actually ever finish clicking the Import button.
    Then, the photos are gone for good and overwritten.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • 2
    We have been doing Moves (Copy and Delete) for years with traditional file managers , so why not have it in LR as well, call it "Move" ----- But Wait there is a "Move" option on the Import menu and it does just that - Except that it is disabled for external devices -

    This means that LR designers purposefully did not want to give users the option of deleting from external media (most likely as a safety mechanism)

    So LR designers please re-think the 'Move' option. A simple "This will delete the Imported files on the Removable Media" warning with a tick box never to show the warning again should resolve this issue.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • I just realised that maybe one of my earlier points wasn't as clearly formulated as it should have been.

    If one has camera-specific RAW files in a catalog one has the option of letting LR convert these RAW files into DNG files and -- wait for it -- big double gasp -- with the option of deleting the originals after "successful conversion".

    How's that reconcilable with the (allegedly existing) notion that a users originals must not be touched? How thorough is the test that the conversion was indeed "successful"?

    Guess what, I'm happy to accept responsibility to chose that option, If I'm concerned, I can make a backup of the originals first.

    AFAIC, there is no difference between deleting a users original RAW files (which are known in some cases to contain more information than the converted DNG files) and deleting already imported files from a card.

    P.S.: Deleted files on a card are completely recoverable by simply restoring directory entries (as long one does not write to the card, but why would one?). The same can probably not be said about the deleted original RAW files on a hard drive as subsequent hard drive activity will likely reuse the space that was used for the files.
    • Hitting Delete also deletes your originals, as does Ctrl+Backspace / Cmf+Delete with rejects etc. So how are these methods "reconcilable with the (allegedly existing) notion that a users originals must not be touched?"

      It's not exactly muddled thinking or even sheer hypocrisy, but some means of deliberate destruction of original files are needed in any system and other types are judged unnecessary and unacceptably risky. DNG conversion falls one side, wiping cards on the other. You may as well attempt to reconcile a donkey and a camel, and you would probably have a greater chance of success....
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. kidding, amused, unsure, silly happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m disappointed.
    We can debate a lot here about these arguments, but I believe this is futile as Adobe does not seem t o care at all for it.

    At least there hasn't been any reaction yet from an Adobe employee. I would really appreciate it if Adobe could at least
    * acknowledge that this is meant as a feature and not a bug
    * if a feature, provide the reasoning behind it (e. g. why moving a file using Lightroom should have a higher risk of data loss than moving a file with e.g. Windows Explorer)
    * if a bug, that and when it will be fixed
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned happy, confident, thankful, excited kidding, amused, unsure, silly