# Smart collection rule - sync status



## happygun (Feb 21, 2018)

Quick question, is it possible to create a smart collection rule that references if a photo is synched to cloud or not?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Feb 21, 2018)

Not yet. I wouldn't mind that feature also.


----------



## happygun (Feb 21, 2018)

Thanks for the response. Seems a simple fix if adobe have the desire.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 21, 2018)

happygun said:


> Thanks for the response. Seems a simple fix if adobe have the desire.


You can send a feature request to Adobe! How do I send a bug report or feature request to Adobe? | The Lightroom Queen


----------



## happygun (Feb 22, 2018)

Perhaps i'm being overly cynical, but 'm not convinced that adobe actually takes much notice of that page....

Take the request for smart collections sync to mobile for example (a 4 year old request), or the request for keywords to sync to / from mobile etc...(also 4 years old)


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 22, 2018)

happygun said:


> Perhaps i'm being overly cynical, but 'm not convinced that adobe actually takes much notice of that page....
> 
> Take the request for smart collections sync to mobile for example (a 4 year old request), or the request for keywords to sync to / from mobile etc...(also 4 years old)


I think the explanation is quite simple. Adobe has decided that Lightroom Classic is for local use and Lightroom CC is for cloud use. Whatever sync options Lightroom Classic currently has won't be removed, but nothing will be added. People can request whatever they like, but whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.


----------



## happygun (Feb 22, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> I think the explanation is quite simple. Adobe has decided that Lightroom Classic is for local use and Lightroom CC is for cloud use. Whatever sync options Lightroom Classic currently has won't be removed, but nothing will be added. People can request whatever they like, but whether you like it or not, that is the way it is.



I think the real reason is Adobe doesn't want / need to spend much effort developing Lightroom Classic as they have the market cornered and have the bucks rolling in (due to subscriptions) -  they don't have to regularly create new versions to draw in income....

But both are opinions either way (unless Adobe have explicitly stated what you suggest? i dont keep that up to date with things as i imagine you may do)


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 22, 2018)

happygun said:


> I think the real reason is Adobe doesn't want / need to spend much effort developing Lightroom Classic as they have the market cornered and have the bucks rolling in (due to subscriptions) -  they don't have to regularly create new versions to draw in income....


That would apply to Lightroom CC as well, which is also subscription only.



> But both are opinions either way (unless Adobe have explicitly stated what you suggest? i dont keep that up to date with things as i imagine you may do)


Adobe has made clear what the difference is between Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.


----------



## happygun (Feb 22, 2018)

JohanElzenga said:


> That would apply to Lightroom CC as well, which is also subscription only.
> 
> 
> *Adobe has made clear what the difference is between Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.*



Appreciate that they have stated that classic is for '_desktop-focused workflows_' (note the use of focused, not desktop _only)_ but have they stated that Classic will no longer receive any new cloud functionality?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 22, 2018)

happygun said:


> Appreciate that they have stated that classic is for '_desktop-focused workflows_' (note the use of focused, not desktop _only)_ but have they stated that Classic will no longer receive any new cloud functionality?


Perhaps not in exactly those words, but let's say that new cloud functionality is not very high on their list (if it's on their list at all) so don't hold your breath.


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 23, 2018)

happygun said:


> I think the real reason is Adobe doesn't want / need to spend much effort developing Lightroom Classic as they have the market cornered and have the bucks rolling in (due to subscriptions) -  they don't have to regularly create new versions to draw in income....
> 
> But both are opinions either way (unless Adobe have explicitly stated what you suggest? i dont keep that up to date with things as i imagine you may do)



Judging by many postings from people angry with the October announcements, there are a number of real and potential competitors to Lightroom.  Those competitors seem willing to add features and have prices lower than Adobe, including one-time purchase rather than subscription.  Adobe can't afford to rest on its laurels if it wants to maintain market supremacy.  If Adobe didn't addresses gaps or weaknesses in the current product line, they would make themselves very vulnerable to competition.

Phil Burton


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 23, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> there are a number of real and potential competitors to Lightroom


For the developing part of Lightroom maybe but not for the managing part


----------



## happygun (Feb 23, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> Judging by many postings from people angry with the October announcements, there are a number of real and potential competitors to Lightroom.  Those competitors seem willing to add features and have prices lower than Adobe, including one-time purchase rather than subscription.  Adobe can't afford to rest on its laurels if it wants to maintain market supremacy.  If Adobe didn't addresses gaps or weaknesses in the current product line, they would make themselves very vulnerable to competition.
> 
> Phil Burton



You would think wouldn't you, but don't you think that the advancements in Lightroom 6 / Classic have been few and far between since the advent of subscription pricing? I know I do. The changes for me have certainly been on the periphery of my requirements and not a significant step in any function.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Feb 23, 2018)

Seems to me that this thread has gotten pretty far off topic. Beating a dead horse here won't solve any of your problems. If you're upset, there's a link to Adobe's bug-and-suggestion site at the top of the page.


----------



## happygun (Feb 23, 2018)

Apologies, didn't realise it was a dead horse, i am far from upset, and it appears to me that this thread did remain on topic as it continued to discuss new features (or lack of...) of Lightroom Classic.. I appreciate that this isn't my own forum and i have to abde by the rules, but should conversations be shut down every time a thread gets critical of Adobe? Anyway, i shall leave this there as you are a moderator and I dont want to be seen as a belligerent member!


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Feb 23, 2018)

This forum is aimed at solving users' problems. We all know that Adobe and LR are much less than perfect. But this forum is here to help users solve their problems with Lightroom, not to provide a soapbox for complaints. Adobe don't follow this forum, so complaining here about their products is bootless at best and takes up the gurus' time to no good purpose. Most if not all of us gurus read every post, and it's to our advantage to increase the signal to noise ratio.


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 23, 2018)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> For the developing part of Lightroom maybe but not for the managing part


Roelof,

Actually there are a number of competitors, some of which are one-man shops.

Photo Supreme (which I tried to use for a while, but which is buggy, has a poor user interface, and which lacks decent documentation.  Also I have heard that it is unstable under MacOS, but I can't confirm that.)
iMatch (which I rejected due to non-support of custom XMP metadata)
Daminian - which did a terrible job of renaming files with sequence number

Those are the ones that come to mind right away.  There are others.

Phil Burton


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 23, 2018)

That's what i mean Phiil, i know these programms but i would not call them 'competitors' because of the arguments you mentioned (and more).
A real alternative for Lightrooms managing part i do not know.


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 24, 2018)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> That's what i mean Phiil, i know these programms but i would not call them 'competitors' because of the arguments you mentioned (and more).
> A real alternative for Lightrooms managing part i do not know.


Roelof,

I agree that these programs are not real substitutes for the LIBRARY functionality in Lightroom, but they _claim to be_.

I spent too much money and then too much time with experiments, etc., trying to work out a workflow that combined Photo Supreme and Lightroom.  After a long period of time, I realized that between all the deficiencies in Photo Supreme, and the lack of compelling unique functionality in Photo Supreme, I was much better off using just Lightroom with careful choice of plug-ins.  The combined workflow required multiple cycles of Lightroom and Photo Supreme, using XMP as the integration tool.  The XMP part worked well enough, but the combined workflow was confusing and very inefficient.  And to what end?

After that experience, it was relatively quick to rule out iMatch and Daminian.

This experience is one of the reasons I decided to commit to Lightroom long-term and become a subscriber.

Phil


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 24, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> This experience is one of the reasons I decided to commit to Lightroom long-term and become a subscriber.


 The same applies for me! A very important thing for me is the most efficient (and effective) workflow possible and that turned out te be a 'one stop shop' (Lightroom).
However, i'm seriously thinking about an exit strategy for if i want to leave.


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 25, 2018)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> The same applies for me! An very important thing for me is the most efficient (and effective) workflow possible and that turned out te be a 'one stop shop' (Lightroom).
> However, i'm seriously thinking about an exit strategy for if i want to leave.


Roelof,

As much as I don't want to sound like an apologist or a fanboy for Lightroom, I don't think that any of the putative DAM competitors will offer significant DAM functionality beyond what Lightroom offers, especially if you consider plug-ins from our own JohnBeardsword, Jeffrey Friedl and John R. Ellis.  Apologies to those plug-in writers I omitted.

In my "day job" I've dealt with a fair number of one-man shops, and that is what Photo Supreme and iMatch are.  They will never have the scale to effectively compete with Adobe.  More likely, they will be acquired by a RAW editor 
competitor who wants to build a full solution including a DAM.  Daminion, I just don't know, but I'm not super-impressed by them.

Having "been there, done that," it's harder to do a two-product solution involving Lightroom and some other DAM product than the vendor websites would have you think.  Fair or not, that's Adobe's competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Phil Burton


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 25, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> I don't think that any of the putative DAM competitors will offer significant DAM functionality beyond what Lightroom offers


 I agree! But this is the present situation 

I'm coming from iView Media/Microsoft Expression Media/Phase One Media Pro so i know how it is to be tied into a system. It costed me a lot of effort en time to migrate over to Lightroom and when Adobe changed their license structure to subscription only i realised i'm tied again. That feeling (i cannot leave when i want) i dont' like. So i have chosen to subscribe but to think about an exit strategy also. For me this means: more smart collections (based on Keywords and other 'transferable'  metadata) instead of static collections. The most difficult part is development, it is possible to get the information into XMP but it's not recognized (yet) by other vendors. So, when the time comes, i suppose i have to export TIF's to retain the development. Maybe i will do that for my 4-stars and higer photo's only. Or maybe there will be other options then.


----------



## PhilBurton (Feb 26, 2018)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> I agree! But this is the present situation
> 
> I'm coming from iView Media/Microsoft Expression Media/Phase One Media Pro so i know how it is to be tied into a system. It costed me a lot of effort en time to migrate over to Lightroom and when Adobe changed their license structure to subscription only i realised i'm tied again. That feeling (i cannot leave when i want) i dont' like. So i have chosen to subscribe but to think about an exit strategy also. For me this means: more smart collections (based on Keywords and other 'transferable'  metadata) instead of static collections. The most difficult part is development, it is possible to get the information into XMP but it's not recognized (yet) by other vendors. So, when the time comes, i suppose i have to export TIF's to retain the development. Maybe i will do that for my 4-stars and higer photo's only. Or maybe there will be other options then.


Roelof,

Since you use Windows a great little tool that is free is Download XML Notepad 2007 from Official Microsoft Download Center.  It runs perfectly well on my Win 10 Pro 64 system.  XML is the name for a software language used to describe how applications share information.  XMP is an example of an XML implementation.

When I was experimenting with integration between Lightroom and Photo Supreme, it was my GO TO tool for verifying that all needed information was in the XMP.  What I noticed was the each application wrote out data fields in a different order, but that all information was being shared properly.

Phil


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Feb 26, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> Since you use Windows a great little tool that is free is Download XML Notepad 2007 from Official Microsoft Download Center. It runs perfectly well on my Win 10 Pro 64 system. XML is the name for a software language used to describe how applications share information. XMP is an example of an XML implementation.


I wrote about XML "it is possible to get the information into XMP but it's not recognized (yet) by other vendors", i was refering about the development information. That information is not transferable yet.

However, for some metadata information XML can be used to transer it to another vendor.


----------



## Denis Pagé (Feb 26, 2018)

This is getting far from the original post...

Please review Hal P Anderson's last comment above.


----------

