Lightroom: Delete Images on Card after Import

Fair point, Victoria.

Note however, that most users wouldn't do this either, before they delete the images on the card manually.

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.

Deleting files from SD card after import works quite fine with Bride and its "Photo Dowloader". BUT: The Photo Downloader is - sorry - a piece of crap, no filter options for doing an efficient import selection - e.g. sort and stack by capture date and time - nothing. Scrolling behaviour is MOST terrible: this probably Windows specific fine, but it is HORRIBLE on Mac. Adobe still didn't learn, how to use the 1000x more performant macOS APIs. But it still can get worse: auto generation of folders doing import by Photo Downloader, supports only a format YYYYMMDD (can not be user changed), where Lightroom uses YYYY-MM-DD, time to check compliance at Adobe: left hand in software department does not know what the right one does :( Such ugly things could easily be avoided. Yahoo, it still can get worse (ok this is Photoshop related, but I don't care): For sport photos editing super important Radial and Zoom filter has still no  Preview and - related to how it looks like - is still a code from 1989 or so... If you check Ps forums in internet, this is complained for at least 10 years. Back to Lr: Drag and drop from files directly into a Lightroom library folder does not work. Lr just imports into folder selected under "To:" in the importer tool. If you forget to select the folder you want to import manually, you'll get a messy import to a random folder. That's really HORRIBLE Look and Feel. But that's Adobe, to big to listen to customers. :( Same as Sony: this are the both companies with the worst customer awareness ever, directly followed by Apple. Please have a nice day... And: Honi soit qui mal y pense: please apologize some of the ugly words used, was written at an emotional moment. But this does not change mentioned content. ;) 

Ya gotta delete 'em at some point. After they've been imported and the backup validated seems like a pretty good time to delete them, to me. One man's important safeguard is another man's impediment...

He's only asking for an option John - nothing to force you to use it.

People have been asking for a long time for this one, and usually I'd agree that automatically deleting off the card is a bad idea, but people are working round it in far more risky ways.

IF there were reasonable verification safeguards in place, and it came with a suitable "I understand the risks" warning when you turned on the checkbox, then it's probably a safer workflow than the workarounds that people are currently using.

I do agree that multiple catalogs are often a bad idea though, and probably not a great reason for implementing this feature.

@Victoria Nowt to do with whether I would have to use it, I simply don't consider it should be available as an option. Verification safeguards would have to be foolproof, not merely reasonable. Too bad if a few people are taking silly workarounds - LR devt time shouldn't go into helping people jump in front of trains.

Let Rob help 'em?

Ya know John, it really bugs me when you argue against things that other people want, that don't affect you, for their own good. Nobody wants you as their guardian, and people don't like having their needs (or their solutions) called "silly". Why don't you mind your own business?

Noise, noise, noise...

To me, the problem with 'options' is that some users will inevitably check the option without realising what they are doing (how often do we have to deal with the 'Help, my presets have disappeared' posts?). That example is relatively easy to fix, although depressingly frequent.....getting this one wrong could have far worse consequences. Lightroom isn't just for power-users (though a casual visitor here could be forgiven for making that assumption), and I strongly suspect that if this option were to be made available some less careful or experienced users will end up losing irreplaceable photos. I'd just as soon not be the person to have to tell them that.

I'm with John on this.

John, if you don't understand the advantages of using multiple catalogs that's fine. I would appreciate, however, if you wouldn't denigrate the ideas of others just because you fail to see the benefit. I'm happy to explain the advantages to you but your overall negative tone makes it hard to believe that you are open for such a discussion.

Jim, please see my latest post below. I kindly ask you to explain to me how users will lose irreplaceable photos, whether they choose the option intentionally or unintentionally.

I've used this option with Picasa all the time and never had a problem. There was no need for me to be a power user or extra careful to not have a problem.

TK, whoever you may be, I couldn't care less about your fragmenting of your workflow into multiple catalogues but drew attention to it as a novel justification for what is a dumb idea for LR. I don't argue against it to be wantonly negative (and who the f are you to question my motives, or I yours?) but simply because the idea is detrimental to LR. If you can't take straight answers....

You drew attention to my justification in a denigrating way. You might consider that just because you fail to see advantages there might still be some. I can take straight responses, no problem. I, however, reject the notion that you are the only one who knows what is good and bad for Lightroom. You have a tendency to phrase your views in such absolute terms that they come across as "the truth" and anyone disagreeing obviously is clueless about Lightroom.

Maybe I should just sound as if I don't know what I think? ;)

Please keep this a positive respectful debate guys.

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.

"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.

Jim, what is that problem that causes users to lose the import? It would have to delete files on a harddisk. If something like this happens all bets are off. no? Such a problem could affect files on a card as well.

Do you have a concrete link to a lightroomforums.net thread were images on the card where the only way of recovering lost images?

When users do something stupid do cause the loss of their imports, they'll be able to do that later as well, when they don't have the card as a backup anymore.

We might agree that my proposal would improve some of the plain awful workflows that exist.

We might agree that anyone who currently has a better workflow is smart enough not to touch the option and/or understand the warning dialog.

Note also, that you can let Lightroom not only import images but have it create a backup before it deletes the images from the card. If anything happened to the imported images, one would have the backup as a fallback option. No need for the images to be still on the card.

> When users do something stupid do cause the loss of their imports, they'll be able to do that later as well, when they don't have the card as a backup anymore.

It's not necessarily the users that are the issue. One of the most frequent causes of file corruption is a faulty card reader or cable. If the photos are imported, and then you realise there's corruption, often the photos are still on the card and can be pulled off safely using another card reader.

There are certainly arguments both ways, and it's up to Adobe to make the final decision having heard the pleas from both sides.

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?

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.

Yeah, I think people are a little "over eager" to cite "safeguard" sometimes, but I really don't know, in this case.

I sometimes delete photos from card via computer and sometimes re-format in camera, depending on stuff - never had a problem with the former. But TK's workflow is what's at stake for him here. He may still re-format afterward in camera sometimes, or all the time, I really don't know, but optimizing ones workflow, even if unconventional, in my opinion, is a good reason to do stuff.

If he were the only one on the planet that wanted this, or it took a lot of work to implement, then I'd agree with John Beardsworth: "tough luck", but neither of those things is true.

Final thought: Sometimes vendors create mantras to avoid having to explain the real deal, realizing that smart people know when *not* to follow the pied piper...

Does the fact that many other software's have this option indicate that Adobe is more concerned with our safety than the others? - my guess: they were just too busy doing other things...

The mantra to always use the camera's format function doesn't make much sense. The card uses a standard file format (typically one of the FAT versions). PC/Mac operating systems can deal with these formats and won't corrupt the card when deleting files.

I have used the format function of my camera perhaps once or twice in the beginning. From then on, I always just deleted the files within the top folder and left the top folder untouched. Number of problems encountered with this approach: Zero.

Card bits can only be written so many times, so the in-camera formatting supposedly includes an algorithm for distributing writes, to avoid writing the front part of the card over and over again and the rear part approximately never, improving longevity.

(Seems I've heard video performance cited too, but I'm not sure about that and I don't understand it)

But based on my recent experience of being able to re-claim photos I'd taken a long time ago after multiple in-camera reformats, the rationale is suspect, in my mind. Sometimes old news is wrong news...

In any case, if there still is, even sometimes, a good reason to always reformat in-camera, I wish Adobe would just explain, maybe as part of the "Are You Sure" prompt that comes up when the user enables the delete after import option.

I mean, defragging wears out your hard drive, but a lot of people do it. Makes 'em a little faster and/or allows you to run 'em fuller, but you have to replace sooner - user's prerogative.

Which card bits get written to is controlled by the card controller (not the camera). It uses a wear balancing algorithm. I'd be very surprised if the camera could actually get down to this level. I'm pretty sure the camera just does what an operating system does.

On the contrary, if one is unlucky the camera does a full-format, i.e., cleans bits that the operating system leaves alone with its "quick format" (or simple deletion of files). In this case the camera would wear out the card sooner than the operating system. Your camera does not seem to perform a full format and I don't know if any camera does, but what it does to the card can only be equivalent or worse what a computer does, I'm pretty sure.

So then why do you suppose so many experts and camera manuals recommend to reformat in camera vs. delete? - The common "understanding" is that its for technical reasons, not just convenience.

Rob, I do not know what the motivation for the "format" recommendation is. I can speculate that whatever the camera does to the card, it has been tested to work with this formatting. However, if the camera does not create a valid file system, preventing you from just deleting files, your camera firmware is at fault, not your workflow. I cannot think of a good reason to always format in camera. You should ask the people who make this recommendation.

Would the same people recommend that you should not delete files from your USB stick, but regularly format it (in a special device, of course, not with a computer)? Camera memory cards and flash memory based USB sticks are block storage devices that do not differ in any fundamental way.

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.

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