Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

33 Messages

 • 

678 Points

Fri, Jul 31, 2020 10:24 PM

Answered

Make deleting images easier

Hitting the "delete" key (also from disk) often results in error messages. One is "xy could not be deleted" (because LR is still reading something from it) or this "?:0: attempt to index a nil value" error, mostly when trying to delete multiple files.

Why not have at least have a queue that waits for LR to give back the file handle of the files I want to delete, and THEN perform the delete action, instead of immediately throwing errors that sometimes (like the "nil" one) take even more time than waiting for the process to finish?

Responses

1.5K Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

2 months ago

Type the X key to flag for deletion. Then later you can delete from an ”allowed” location ( on Mac, Command/delete keys).

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

33 Messages

 • 

678 Points

This may be a better workflow, indeed, thanks for the suggestion!

576 Messages

 • 

9.1K Points

2 months ago

You have a problem with your computer. I never ever get that Nul value error.

1.5K Messages

 • 

19.1K Points

On a Mac, I'm not even sure what a "Nul value error" is but like you, I've never seen one. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers"

139 Messages

 • 

2.9K Points

"Nul Points"

33 Messages

 • 

678 Points

It's actually easy to explain why this error appears:

1. Lightroom has an internal array of all the images.
2. I delete an image
3. The object in this array becomes "nil" and gets removed.
4. Lightroom wants to access this image in another process that isn't aware of this removal and still has an old copy of the array, it would update the array, but much too late.
5. As the image isn't there anymore, it only finds "nil" (looks like Lua) and complains with an error.

18 Messages

 • 

380 Points

2 months ago

I DO get the Nil value error when I delete multiple images!

58 Messages

 • 

818 Points

2 months ago

I too have experienced both of those situations and wondered the same.  Why not just stick the action into a queue.  I would think that It mustn't be difficult to code.