MacOS Photos does not 'find the original'

The real problem with copying all the pictures to the library, is that they are stuck in a package of shortcuts and originals. This kind of setup while it makes extra copies of the photos in the process, they are not as easy to manage or find once in the package. When copying you also duplicate the size of the photos managed on your Mac. For those with limited storage that can be a real burden.

Knowing where you keep the original folder in the Finder gives you an easier chance to make extra copies on the Finder that can be edited as needed to be incorporated in Albums, Facebook uploads etc.

Putting all your eggs in the Photos Library basket, and using them in the iCloud Library is fine as long as you know that's exactly what you are doing. But iCloud for those who can't afford additional services (everything above 5 GB is not free) will not be able to manage anything but the smallest of Photo libraries. Plus large photo libraries take forever to sync unless you have high speed fiberoptic internet. 7Mbps the average cable upload speed is not enough to handle most photo libraries.

Easy Find searches the whole hard drive. If you keep proper chronological management of your photos in the Finder, with folders by at least date, and/or event name, you'll be a lot better shape in managing where the photos are.

Locate the original photo files with Devon Technologies Easy Find, and go through Photos menu -> Preferences -> General and

and make sure "copy items to photo library" is unchecked. Then reimport the folder the actual photos are in.

This will ensure the originals remain in their original locations, but let you copy and then save them within the library itself.

Library can get disconnected especially if ICloud is backing up the photos.

I would be very very wary of advising people to uncheck that 'copy photos' option without explaining the quite profound consequences of it - including, among others, that you can't use the iCloud Library, the responsibility for file management, and the profound difficulties in reconnecting disconnected images. For instance what you suggest will lead to two sets of the same images in the Library. If the masters are within the library package then they will also have been renamed by Photos, so what is Easy Find searching on?

The real problem with copying all the pictures to the library, is that they are stuck in a package of shortcuts and originals. This kind of setup while it makes extra copies of the photos in the process, they are not as easy to manage or find once in the package.

There is no such problem, nothing is stuck and anything can be exported. Originals can be exported. Edited versions can be exported and shared in different formats at different sizes and qualities. No extra copies are made. I've no idea why you would be searching within the package in the first place. That's not how it is designed to work.

When copying you also duplicate the size of the photos managed on your Mac. For those with limited storage that can be a real burden.

You don't, because why would you keep the copy without the package? That makes no sense, and the question doesn't arise for the vast number of users who import directly from their camera or other devices.

Knowing where you keep the original folder in the Finder gives you an easier chance to make extra copies on the Finder that can be edited as needed to be incorporated in Albums, Facebook uploads etc.

Using Photos as designed makes all of that redundant and less efficient.

Easy Find searches the whole hard drive. If you keep proper chronological management of your photos in the Finder, with folders by at least date, and/or event name, you'll be a lot better shape in managing where the photos are.

Again, as you seem unaware, Photos renames files. So I didn't ask where Easy Find searches, I asked what is it searching on?

It has to be within Photos, otherwise would not display anything.

No it doesn't. Masters can be stored within or without the Library package. The most common source of thees issues with Photos is when someone either accidentally imports images that are not stored within the package or doesn't understand the consequences of doing so.

If you want real control of your photos keep the true originals in a folder other than Photos app.

This is a perfectly sensible way of working but I strongly recommend that if you do, you do not use the Photos app. It doesn't have the tools the manage this kind of referenced library, and it has less features if you do.

In a sense, even Time Machine becomes useless because there is no way to retrieve some photos from the app, it's either all or nothing!

This is factually incorrect. You can back up and restore libraries with Time Machine. However, if you do this is a referenced mode you will have issues.

My entire point is that recommending people to use Referenced Mode is dangerous and risks data loss without first warning them of it.

Exactly. So the obvious question becomes:

Are you running a Managed or a Referenced Library?

A Managed Library, is the default setting, and Photos copies files into the Photos  Library when Importing. The files are then stored within the Library package

A Referenced Library is when Photos is NOT copying the files into the Photos Library when importing because you made a change at Photo -> Preferences -> General. (You unchecked the option to copy files into the Library on import) The files are then stored where ever you put them and not in the Library package. In this scenario you are responsible for the File Management.

Try to get all your libraries really consolidated in your library before you upgrade to macOS 13 Ventura.

Since the Ventura upgrade Photos is crashing on my Macs when I try to consolidate referenced images, on all three Macs I am using with Ventura, even on small test libraries in my Pictures folder that I have created for testing the referenced photos. Reconnecting referenced images with broken references is not working either, unless I rename the photos to the name they used to have and move them back to the folder where Photos is expecting them to be. At least one long standing bug has been fixed for referenced libraries. On Ventura I can see the referenced photos again on the Places map.

Yer_Man, I tend to not like to argue too much in public. Suffice it to say, the difficulty I have faced with packages and libraries is something you may not have stumbled across. When Apple change the Pictures folder into a "package" in your Home folder, it made management of photos that much more difficult. It is bad enough when you import into Photos that it creates a bunch of aliases, but it also creates thumbnails, which on the surface look just like the original. Then when you go to search for photos, you don't know unless you compare the photos side by side whether or not you are looking at thumbnails or original, and can find yourself deleting your originals. For people with large libraries this can become very cumbersome. In attempting to protect the end user from damaging their photo library, they made real management more difficult, not easier. And when I brought over libraries from iPhoto, I lost a lot of meta data. I had to recreate my keys, and recreate many of my albums because I was also moving to machines that no longer could have iPhoto. I'm glad it works for you.

I have no argument with you whatever, but there are significant consequences to running a referenced library and they should be expressed when it is recommended. There is a real risk of dataloss when the user becomes responsible for file management, and is not made aware of that. That was my primary point.

Also, frankly, there are some factual inaccuracies in what you post:

When Apple change the Pictures folder into a "package" in your Home folder, it made management of photos that much more difficult.

Apple didn't change the Pictures Folder to a package. Apple changed (first) iPhoto, then the Aperture and now the Photos libraries into packages because the libraries were being inadvertently corrupted by users. Again, a source of dataloss. There are no user serviceable parts in these libraries, and there never has been, right back to the first version of iPhoto, twenty years ago.

It is bad enough when you import into Photos that it creates a bunch of aliases, but it also creates thumbnails, which on the surface look just like the original. Then when you go to search for photos, you don't know unless you compare the photos side by side whether or not you are looking at thumbnails or original, and can find yourself deleting your originals.

It doesn't create an aliases. It did back in the early days of iPhoto, but hasn't in years. Secondly, these apps are Photo Managers. They are your go-to apps for managing your images - like Contacts us for your addresses and phone numbers. You don't search in the Finder for the file with your brother's email address, you search in Contacts. Equally, you search in Photos (or the many hooks into the app) for your photograph. It's the photo you want, not the file. It's quite the point of using these apps. So, no, you're never comparing versions because they're all in the back end - the place with no user serviceable parts. If you are doing this, then frankly, you've not grasped the concept of Photo Manager. When you refer to "real management" you seem to refer to file management. These apps make that redundant for photograph files. Import an image, It creates various thumbnails. Edit it and it creates a preview. Delete it and the original as well as all of these extra files are removed.

Attempting to interact with these libraries via the Finder or other file manager is a possible way to explain why you've lost data migrating.

This is true of all photo managers- iPhoto, Photos, Aperture, Lightroom Classic and so on. They are about managing the photographs and not the file management. If you want to manage files, don't use a photo manager.

To say there are no user serviceable parts to these libraries means though, that what I am saying about duplication is correct. If you are going to reference originals in their full fledged file size (I've looked in the packages), you are duplicating space for every photo imported. When Apple only offers 128 GB or 256 GB space on many cheaper Mac models, this makes the management of large photo libraries a real bear because of the loss of space.

You are forced to add a layer of file management when you don't have space to manage the duplication of the pictures themselves on your system. If you don't, you easily run out of space on systems.

Not to mention, I have seen people reference their entire library in the cloud, only slow themselves down even more because their upstream speed is only 7 Mbps or less.

The reason I like to use photo management is that you can quickly attach names like locations you have visited, and reference them when sharing to people on Facebook, or doing a slideshow for people. The downside is trying to locate what you haven't had time to manage.

I've had to dig into the packages, when I find that I can't locate the pictures any other means (like old SD cards).

And want to know where I stored the files before.

It is hard for people who don't have time in their lives to manage everything.

If you are going to reference originals in their full fledged file size (I've looked in the packages), you are duplicating space for every photo imported.

Huh? Really? You wouldn't think of - perhaps - deleting the other copy? Why would you keep the copy if it's on the same disk? Plus most people import not from folders on the same disk, but from camera cards and other devices. (And of course, none of this precludes the importance of Backups on other disks.)

You are forced to add a layer of file management when you don't have space to manage the duplication of the pictures themselves on your system. If you don't, you easily run out of space on systems.

No you're not forced to add a layer of file management. In fact, quite the opposite. But all this suggests strongly that you don't understand these applications - which is fine. They're not for everybody.

Not to mention, I have seen people reference their entire library in the cloud, only slow themselves down even more because their upstream speed is only 7 Mbps or less.

The Cloud is not required. You don't have to use the iCloud Photo Library. I really have no idea why you see that optional extra as somehow an argument against the application. If your internet connection isn't up to the job just don't turn that on.

The reason I like to use photo management is that you can quickly attach names like locations you have visited, and reference them when sharing to people on Facebook, or doing a slideshow for people. The downside is trying to locate what you haven't had time to manage.

This is not photo management, it's adding metadata - a mere fraction of that these apps do. There really is no difficulty find images if you have even the merest idea of the date it was taken.

I've had to dig into the packages, when I find that I can't locate the pictures any other means (like old SD cards).

If you don't know how to use the app and this is what you do, and this explains why you have issues migrating.

And want to know where I stored the files before.

Then don't use a photo manager, use a file manager. All your issues come down to not being able to distinguish between the two.