Folder moving - any alternative to drop & drag

Question

Hi,
It seems to be my day for asking basic LR3 questions.
I have quite a complicated folder system that I have operated manually for quite a while and I am comfortable with it. Without going into too many details, one of the basic premises is that I have a separate area for work in hand - so that I can see exactly what I have to do and don't forget anything (which at my age does happen more than I would like!). Having done the processing, I move the folders into a completed processing area. It has benefits in splitting the photos across physical discs for safety and also helps in copying stuff to my laptop as necessary. It all works OK with me doing manual copies using windows.
In LR3 the move operation is possible by drag and drop which is OK until you have a structure which is too large for you to have both (source and target folders/discs) visible on the screen at once. At which point in windows, you either open 2 windows to make both visible or use cut and paste. Given the relatively small space for the folder structure on the LHS of LR3 I feel I will need an alternative to drag & drop.
Any suggestions?

Answer 1

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Pete Marshall wrote:
Totally agree...however LR is designed around a database, not as a file browser. If you workflow is based on using folders and multiple copies of the same file, why eactly would you choose a application designed around a different methodology?
After all Bridge will do everything you want, far more efficiently than LR as LR is just not a file browser and does file browsing  in the traditional model (if a model that has only  been around for a decade can be called traditional) very badly, whislt Brideg does it very well. PS will also do any processing LR is capable of and a lot more. As far as I can see the only (and it is a big one) advantage of LR over Bridge and PS is that it has a far more sophisticated and user friendly (once you learn how it works) management system.
Imajez wrote :
I use 'traditional' folders for organising by date + subject, 2010/2010-08-August/2010-08-20 Whitely Woods for an example of my folder structure. Yet I can still use LR's metadata approach on top of that as I simply import my logical folder structure. Best of both worlds. I simply use Br + LR where each is more advantageous/quicker/easier.
Nothing to stop KeithR16 doing the same and there are some useful workflow tips on the page referenced above that can be added to your current workflow Keith, not just as a way of replacing it.
Money is what is driving me! I can either afford to upgrade CS2 to CS5 or buy lightroom with CS2 available for detailed pixel based editing. Before anyone asks I have tried Elements and find that too restrictive to even consider using as my main pixel based photoediting method.
I have CS2 and am basically happy with it apart from it having been somewhat overtaken technologically. My D700 is not supported for RAW and the RAW engine is nowhere near as good as the modern one in CS5 or LR3. So I am looking to improve the technology - the question is what is best.
I agree wholeheartedly with much of what Pete says above. CS5 is much more suited to my way of working but it does make hard work of handling photos in "bulk" whereas Lightroom has some really good export facilities. Both are pretty crap at file naming. I have a cheap utility (Bulk Rename Utility) that beats both for flexibility albeit being a bit more hands on. There are limits to the benefits of automating some things.
On the whole despite the frustrations, LR2 + CS2 looks the way to go for the best of both worlds. My ideas are similar to those of Imajez but I just have to work out how frustrated I will be fighting LR3. Once I have decided that I will look in detail at my workflow.
Incidentally, I make extensive use of flickr but, having tried it, wouldn't touch the LR3 flickr publishing tool with the proverbial bargepole.  I like to be much more in control.