# Kelby SLIM method



## shiraz (Jan 13, 2017)

I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.
Anybody doing it the same way? I was wondering how you organise thousands of family pictures with this method? I think you get collections with large amounts of photos?
The explanation of a travel shoot is clear and a good way to organise your stuff.
But when you almost daily take pictures of your newborn child, you have a problem with his method?

Ex. collection and subcollection

Londen
--- Full Shoot (500 photos)
--- Picks (80 photos)
--- Final selects (30 photos)


----------



## rob211 (Jan 13, 2017)

Not sure what that system is, and we'd have to pay to find out unless you care to share....

But frankly I think collections are a poor way to organize subject matter; I prefer keywords, captions, location and other metadata for that.

The collections you list are sort of confusing.

First, you could put "London" in the City in location data and then always find that with a metadata search or filter.

Second, picks are also stored in each photo (or in the database; same result). So you can always filter or search for those too.

Both of these don't need a collection, although one might be handy temporarily, or via a smart collection (say find by yesterday's date,  location is London, pick is true or whatever).

So final selects might then be useful as a collection...but that depends on what you're gonna do next. Delete the others? publish them? print them? I use labels for some of that, or even keywords. But most often I use the pick flag. I'd use the X for the ones and then search for not-X in the second step you have about (so I get all possible candidates, but not the final picks). That's because there's a nice command to delete all Xed photos.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi shiraz,

I have to agree with Rob's general comment.
Without actually knowing the details of Kelby's system is impossible to offer an opinion.

I actually went looking for the videos - all the access I could get was for the introductory video.

Perhaps you would share the nut's and bolt's of Scott's system and what you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of the system, especially as it pertains to your needs.
It is worth re-iterating a point Scott makes in his introduction that his system is not for everyone.

Tony Jay


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 14, 2017)

I would be suggesting keywords over collections . Collections seem handy for recent files / working on files but keywords are the long term answer plus maybe using a dated folder system 
Collections are not transferable to other programs where as keywords/tags often are
Keyword idea -- daughter's name > one-three months > three to six month > birthday >


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 14, 2017)

Ian - not quite sure I can completely agree with you here.

Keywords are essential, we are totally in accord there!
However, I create Smart collections based on keywords and other metadata that allow a very sophisticated organisation of images *within *Lightroom.
Also, as regards the OP and his reference to Scott Kelby's SLIM system, the whole system under discussion is one that functions *within* Lightroom.
The question is not primarily one that concerns organisation outside of Lightroom.

A folder system is not really of huge organisational value *within* Lightroom.
A folder system is merely a means of image storage on a hard disk somewhere.
It is a bit like stacking bricks - once the bricks are stacked one doesn't want to fiddle with the stack again!
I am strongly in favour of a date-based folder system (you obviously are too!), but once created and stored away on a hard drive don't fiddle with images via the folders.
One then goes on to assigning keywords and other metadata capture in order to make all one's images easy to find and categorise in any way that is applicable and relevant to a particular user.

With regard to a future scenario when one might need to use a different software system to organise images having all one's images neatly organised and also properly kewyorded and with appropriate metadata capture would make the transition relatively smooth and, in that sense, your point is well taken!

BTW Ian - what is the weather like in your neck of the woods at the moment?
In SE Qld it is beyond hot currently!

Tony Jay


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

Scott says to use a folder structure that is equal to the collections.
That way you know where your images are and you find them quickly without keywords.
For example Landscape, Sports, Family, Misc., Architecture, Travel
"Adding multiple keywords to a photo takes about a  minute, finding a photo in an organised tree takes about the same, so why using that much time in adding keywords"
The filename must bne a descriptive name, so you can search for it.

I "hate" the star rating because "what is a 4 and what is a 5" and so on...


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

Ian.B said:


> I would be suggesting keywords over collections . Collections seem handy for recent files / working on files but keywords are the long term answer plus maybe using a dated folder system
> Collections are not transferable to other programs where as keywords/tags often are
> Keyword idea -- daughter's name > one-three months > three to six month > birthday >



I have a dated folder system and I use I use this method (one to three, three to six) with smart collections. Problem gets with more children and single shots of them or together, the whole family, with grandparents, ... I'm overthinking it I guess


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> Hi shiraz,
> 
> I have to agree with Rob's general comment.
> Without actually knowing the details of Kelby's system is impossible to offer an opinion.
> ...



I think:
Strength: you don't have to worry about 1 to 5 stars. Just flags. For me that should work.
Cons: Folder structure/collection structure. You must make sure that the folders and collections don't contain to much photo. U have the "feeling'" that LR gets slower in processing photos in large folders and collections. Ex. showing the 1:1 preview (even if you have all the previews generated).


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 14, 2017)

OK now I have a little understanding of Scott Kelby suggests.
I will go back to his introductory video where he clearly explains this system is not for everyone.

To try and mirror one's folder system with collections seems, to me, to be extraordinarily limiting.
It is a system for those who cannot see past a system of real envelopes in which negatives are stored with the odd bit of info scrawled on the envelope.

Shiraz, you have already unmasked at least some of the limitations of this system - what to do with images that belong in several folders simultaneously.
Lightroom already has the answer for you but if you insist on collections mirroring folder structure then Lightroom can't help.

By advocating this system it removes nearly all the power that Lightroom has as an organisational tool.

Tony Jay


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

You can get a free 10 day trial and watch


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> OK now I have a little understanding of Scott Kelby suggests.
> I will go back to his introductory video where he clearly explains this system is not for everyone.
> 
> To try and mirror one's folder system with collections seems, to me, to be extraordinarily limiting.
> ...



At first I thought wow, these are good ideas.
But like you said, you ignore a lot of functionality in LR


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 14, 2017)

Shiraz

I am also in the dark about whatever Kelby says, but for advice on organisation I would point you to Peter Krogh's The DAM Book (I tech edited it) and his videos, or to those by George Jardine.

That said, I would not recommend applying different organisation methods to different groups of images. It's hard enough maintaining one system without maintaining two or more. 

Also groups of images change over time, interests change, or how we interpret them changes. As an example, a friend used to have his folder structure based around hobbies, travel and family. But this broke down when he photographed one of his hobbies (cars) in New Zealand and met one of the drivers who he just married. Where do these early photos go?

That's why folders aren't great for categorising your images. And it shows how it's important to think about organisation in two separate ways - storage and categorisation.

Use folders purely for storage, categorise with keywords and other metadata, and use collections to gather and group photos.

So with folders, use Lightroom's simple date-based structure and think about folders only in terms of backing up and long term safekeeping of your pictures. Put your effort into keywords and other standard metadata, because they have the flexibility that reflects how we think about pictures in the long term. And create collections as and when you need to gather and group photos for whatever, for a slideshow, a book, showing them to someone etc.

John


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 14, 2017)

Shiraz (cool handle by the way),

John Beardsworth has just posted an excellent summary post outlining all the points I wanted to make!

Tony Jay


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 14, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> BTW Ian - what is the weather like in your neck of the woods at the moment?
> In SE Qld it is beyond hot currently!
> 
> Tony Jay


beautiful tony ; 28 today -- 31 tomorrow --13 tonight but I'm not too keen on looking any further ahead --- something like a 42 somewhere . 
Cheers Mate


----------



## shiraz (Jan 14, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Shraz
> 
> I am also in the dark about whatever Kelby says, but for advice on organisation I would point you to Peter Krogh's The DAM Book (I tech edited it) and his videos, or to those by George Jardine.
> 
> ...



OK, good example of your friend's early pictures. That's what I'm struggling with when I should switch to his system. 
Yes, I have the first and second printing of the book, but as an amateur, I only use parts of the ideas in the book (a small keyword hierachy and a couple of collections).


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 14, 2017)

The book is very much about some basic principles that apply to any type of user and changing tech. But it is long and that's why I try to emphasize the idea of folders for safekeeping, metadata for categorising, collections for gathering. I've not yet succeeded in boiling it down to 4 letters though.


----------



## rob211 (Jan 14, 2017)

I'm only hearing this second hand, but mirroring folders with collections is just redundant. The only benefit is when you don't mirror, since an image can be in more than one collection ("cars" and "spouse" for an image with her leaning on a Ferrari) but not more than one folder. Keywords are more flexible, even though it took the same time to enter that info. And then you can get a smart collection or filter that will show you car shots without the spouse. With the collection scheme only that's not possible; "cars" would show that spouse-on-Ferrari shot.

Try the DAM Book. It's great.

And consider that what you're doing is adding info, metadata, whether by adding to a collection or keywording. But keywords, even if they take the same time to apply as to "collect" a photo, are far more useful and flexible. And Kelby seems to be ignoring the power of hierarchies, which impart more info. Collections are very limited. Keywords car>jaguar tells you much more than just "car" and "jaguar." And you'd need collection sets then, one for "Cars" with a "Jaguar" collection within. But that would get very cumbersome very fast, which is why few do it.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 14, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> But it is long and that's why I try to emphasize the idea of folders for safekeeping, metadata for categorising, collections for gathering. I've not yet succeeded in boiling it down to 4 letters though.



That's exactly the same principles I've used in my current (ongoing) blog post series, if the DAM book ends up too overwhelming. 

I haven't managed to get it down to 4 letters either though, and to be honest, I think anyone here is quite intelligent enough to manage more than 4 letters.


----------



## Hoggy (Jan 15, 2017)

OK - no one is gonna say it flat-out,  So I will. 
I'd drop the whole notion of "SLIM" as pure garbage..  Probably just a marketing gimmick. I personally don't understand why he would advocate such an archaic system.  There are those that still stubbornly insist on doing things in such that way, maybe because "that's how they were trained to think while using Unix" - or some other vacuum-tube type of operating system.  But, guess what..  It's now 2017 - believe it or not, computers can do more now! 

As others, and even yourself, are pointing out: what to do with images that belong in multiple categories.
Before I discovered Lightroom, circa 2012, all my images were strewn about on my hard drive.  Barely ever looked at, because it was all such a mess.  I couldn't figure out how to have pictures in many category-folders without having thousands of duplicates all over the place - or the nightmare of dealing with soft/hard-links. ...  So on the hard-drive they sat, collecting metal-oxide.

When I discovered Lightroom, it was a real-life 'bright light shining on a holy grail' moment.  Finally, here was something that could be used to wrangle and organize everything in the way people actually _think _about photos.  My photos are no longer just sitting on the hard drive anymore..  Well, at least where the DO sit, they stay. 

Keywording (aka, one type of metadata) is where the real power is at.  Most of the time I don't even have the Folder panel _visible _in LR.  As far as stars, I don't use more than 3..  As per The DAM Book: most should be in 1 star, 10x less should be 2 stars, and still 10x less should be at 3 stars, etc.

John said it succinctly: F-S, M-C, C-G
So..  6 letters.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 15, 2017)

I guess we were just being polite Hoggy!

But, yes, your thoughts about the SLIM system are correct.
It is a bit mystifying why Scott Kelby elected to teach something like this - maybe he is aiming this system at people who really do know nothing about computers and less about Lightroom.
But it doesn't take that much to teach people the fundamentals thus allowing them access to both computer/OS features and Lightroom functionality to construct a pretty robust DAM system.

Tony Jay


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 15, 2017)

no one really appreciates LR if they have not used film and tried to operate a paper / card system . I found clients weren't to bad to keep track of as they got a separate file # ; but most other stuff was remembered by the how when why and lots of guessing . The trouble today is we take and _KEEP_ so many photos that will likely never  see the back off the screen again
I use stars a bit to keep track what is edited or part edited or to edit but never for like / better / great. The trouble is I don't get past 2 or 3 stars 
I have always appreciated Tony's help and advice when I first came here to get my keywords more sorted into hierarchies


----------



## shiraz (Jan 15, 2017)

Thanks for all the input!


Tony Jay said:


> Shiraz (cool handle by the way),



Name of my dog and a wine grape


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 15, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> It is a bit mystifying why Scott Kelby elected to teach something like this - maybe he is aiming this system at people who really do know nothing about computers and less about Lightroom.



I think an "educator" has to attempt to boil down the message to something that people can take away the first time they read something. Apart from the marketing value, you're putting across a mass of information to readers with different hardware / software / skills / time etc and they will not appreciate any subtlety until they've read through a couple of times, or more. So I think it is important to try to offer a strong message. Of course, that should be good practice, not bad.



Hoggy said:


> John said it succinctly: F-S, M-C, C-G
> So..  6 letters.



I fear that's more like Scrabble or a TV gameshow than a marketing campaign - we need more vowels!

John


----------



## rob211 (Jan 15, 2017)

Heh. I'd like to defend Kelby, thinking maybe it's just step one in a longer process of organizing or learning, like for someone who is unfamiliar with virtual containers, but I can't since it's pay stuff and on video. Kind of an example of why more open source educational materials are more valuable, since it generates feedback for improvement. And Ms Bampton, the Lightroom Queen, is the perfect example of that. I used to teach school, and she's got it right. Jeez, on his site one reference to a Lr book got me a 404. And the others offer so little I really couldn't tell if I'd be wasting money. And here he's now getting panned, when perhaps if we could see exactly what he recommends we might have a different opinion. Sigh.

I have noticed that on other forums with new users asking about organizing in Lr that the desire to use collections/sets as the prime organizer and finding function in Lr is strong. Maybe more obviously in former Apple Aperture users because it forced one to use lots (too many IMHO) virtual containers, and because iPhoto did as well (although its events default organization made WAY more sense, since it's basically date-based folders). And I think it explains why some Aperture users found the Lr interface horrid (that, and the module approach vs a rather floating palette interface).


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 15, 2017)

OK; I will ask the dumb question -- what is the basics of the SLIM system?  Must admit I have not taken any notice of it even if I used SK's books to learn and sort of understand LR3 --- that was before I bothered with the time wasting too much info  WWW. That book  was a total wreck by the time I pasted it onto someone else ; and the LR 5 book just fell apart


----------



## shiraz (Jan 13, 2017)

I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.
Anybody doing it the same way? I was wondering how you organise thousands of family pictures with this method? I think you get collections with large amounts of photos?
The explanation of a travel shoot is clear and a good way to organise your stuff.
But when you almost daily take pictures of your newborn child, you have a problem with his method?

Ex. collection and subcollection

Londen
--- Full Shoot (500 photos)
--- Picks (80 photos)
--- Final selects (30 photos)


----------



## shiraz (Jan 16, 2017)

Simplified Lightroom Image Management System

At first I thought it was good, because I spend to much time thinking about the star rating, the keywords and the keyword hierarchy.

Some key points
- Use one folder Photos with a couple of folders in it (Architecture, Sports, Misc., Family, Travel, ...).
- Put the photos in subfolders (no date, because LR has a date filter for it).
- Give the photos a descriptive name (which can be used to search your photos, so don't need keywords).
- Don't use keywords (except special cases), because it takes for example a minute to think about 7 keywords for one picture. Searching that same picture in this setup takes about the same time (or less). So entering keywords for all the photos takes to much time, because you know the folder structure and so you can narrow down quickly the location of the picture.
- Only use flags for your best pics, because what is a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5

this is just a small summary.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 16, 2017)

Sounds like a very poor substitute for keywords, collections and smart collections. It may work if you only have a few thousand images to deal with, but it will fail miserably if you are a more serious photographer. Just one example: where do you store images of your family that were taken while on a holiday and so show typical travel subjects too?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 16, 2017)

Yep, I came up with a similar question: where to put the pictures of the kids playing tennis while on holiday?

I guess this is aimed more at the beginner who comes from a background (as many of us did) of storing our pictures in named folders, and renaming the images files accordingly. I still have a few folders from my pre-Lightroom days with themed names, some of them with the contents similarly renamed.

Not everyone dives into keywords immediately (some may use Lightroom for years before they do), so this method could work for some (maybe many) people. though they may quickly find its shortcomings.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 16, 2017)

It seems a very pre-Lightroom way of working. 

I blame my accounting past for never having gone down the subject-based folder route. Managing photos isn't much different from managing thousands of invoices and orders


----------



## bob chadwick (Jan 16, 2017)

I do agree with the limited number of folders.  I have a folder called pictures and then a folder with the various years.  I don't do one for each shoot preferring to use keywords and collections.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm a bit in the middle, so to speak. I do use location based folders (for some shoots, not for all). For example; I've been travelling to the Canary Islands several times to shoot the different islands. In two weeks I'll go to Tenerife. It does make sense to me to have a parent folder called 'Canary Islands' with subfolders 'Grand Canaria', 'Lanzarote', 'Tenerife', La Palma', etc. In a way it makes more sense than having '2014', '2015', '2016', '2017' simply because that happened to be the years I did my traveling there. I don't use these folders for organisational purposes however, so their names are irrelevant to me anyway. I use keywords, collections and smart collections for that. And contrary to what Kelby suggests, it doesn't take any time at all to add the keywords 'Canary Islands' and 'Tenerife' to all the images I will be shooting in two weeks. All it takes is an import preset.

So why do I use location based folders if I don't use them for organisation anyway? As a 'back-up strategy'. I don't intend to leave Lightroom for another raw converter any time soon, but I didn't intend to ever leave Aperture either. Until Apple forced me to. It could happen again, and then I may end up with a raw converter that does not have more than a fancy file browser. In that case, location based folders are probably a better start than date based folders, so I do it 'just in case'.


----------



## frozenframe (Jan 16, 2017)

I'll add one thing in Kelby's defense on his LR Management, that has not been mentioned. He does make extensive use of Collections. He believes in using them over keywording. The reason he gives is during his workshops he would constantly have students get stuck, hung-up on what keywords to use. He doesn't totally dismiss keywords, agreeing that some genre of photographers benefit from them, and may need to. So while he does use the OS folder structure, he does so alongside heavy usage of Collections. I think most here can agree Collections in LR is very powerful.


----------



## clee01l (Jan 16, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> It does make sense to me to have a parent folder called 'Canary Islands' with subfolders 'Grand Canaria', 'Lanzarote', 'Tenerife', La Palma', etc.


To me these are keywords  and managed best with Collections in a Collection set. I use folders as a filesystem storage location for images and nothing else.  I manage my images using Collections, Smart Collections and Keywords.  Most of the time my Folder panel is collapsed and hidden in LR.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 16, 2017)

clee01l said:


> To me these are keywords  and managed best with Collections in a Collection set. I use folders as a filesystem storage location for images and nothing else.  I manage my images using Collections, Smart Collections and Keywords.  Most of the time my Folder panel is collapsed and hidden in LR.



That's exactly what I said too. I use these folder names 'just in case' and because it doesn't matter what folders are called anyway. I don't use them in any way for my organisation. My folder panel is closed, and I have a collection set 'Canary Islands' with collections 'Gran Canaria', 'La Palma', 'Lanzarote' and 'Tenerife'.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 16, 2017)

frozenframe said:


> I'll add one thing in Kelby's defense on his LR Management, that has not been mentioned. He does make extensive use of Collections. He believes in using them over keywording. The reason he gives is during his workshops he would constantly have students get stuck, hung-up on what keywords to use. He doesn't totally dismiss keywords, agreeing that some genre of photographers benefit from them, and may need to. So while he does use the OS folder structure, he does so alongside heavy usage of Collections. I think most here can agree Collections in LR is very powerful.



To me that would only add to the confusion. It means you have two places to find your images: in the folder panel and in the collections panel. Lightroom 6 now has an 'add to collection' option in the import dialog, so what's easier than adding all images to a collection with the same name as that folder, so you can keep your folder panel closed and only use one place (the collections panel)?


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 16, 2017)

Collections just shouldn't be used in preference to standard IPTC fields like keywords. When the day comes to move on from Lightroom, your keywording will still have value, while proprietary data like collections may well be toast. Collections are best used to "collect".


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 16, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Collections just shouldn't be used in preference to standard IPTC fields like keywords. When the day comes to move on from Lightroom, your keywording will still have value, while proprietary data like collections may well be toast. Collections are best used to "collect".



Agreed, I do both. I add my Tenerife photos to a 'Tenerife' collection on import, but I also add 'Tenerife' as keyword on import. It can all be done in a single import preset anyway.


----------



## shiraz (Jan 16, 2017)

frozenframe said:


> I'll add one thing in Kelby's defense on his LR Management, that has not been mentioned. He does make extensive use of Collections. He believes in using them over keywording. The reason he gives is during his workshops he would constantly have students get stuck, hung-up on what keywords to use. He doesn't totally dismiss keywords, agreeing that some genre of photographers benefit from them, and may need to. So while he does use the OS folder structure, he does so alongside heavy usage of Collections. I think most here can agree Collections in LR is very powerful.


Indeed, thats why I wanted to use it. But zt this moment I shoot a lot of family pictures and got a bit stuck.
It certainly wasn't my goal to say that Scott his method is awfull or something like that.


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 16, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> Sounds like a very poor substitute for keywords, collections and smart collections. It may work if you only have a few thousand images to deal with, but it will fail miserably if you are a more serious photographer. Just one example: where do you store images of your family that were taken while on a holiday and so show typical travel subjects too?


I want to strongly, strongly, strongly support what Johan says here.  Beyond what he says, what if in the future, you decide on a new way to sort out your images.  But you didn't think of that years earlier, did you?  With a file-naming system, you're stuck.  With keywords, you probably have a faster way to get to the new sort.

Speaking only for myself and not Johan, my respect for Scott has gone down with his SLIM system.  Like so many others, I read his original DAM book and learned a lot, despite my software/IT background.  But I wouldn't foist SLIM on my wife.  I would teach her some basic keywording and maybe star ratings.  And also COLORS, maybe a bit too much.

Phil


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 16, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> my respect for Scott has gone down with his SLIM system. Like so many others, I read his original DAM book and learned a lot



Phil, aren't you confusing Scott and Peter Krogh? 

John


----------



## frozenframe (Jan 16, 2017)

I think everyone is going to have their own way(s) to manage their images, utilizing the different means LR makes available. I think how you remember/recall plays into this. There are some people that are "numbers people". They can remember dates but may struggle with what or where. While others memory is based on what or where and not when. I know there's members here that have a very detailed keyword hierarchy for wildlife, birding, ect. For those keywording is a must. Hobbyist that aren't concerned with all the proper naming conventions for birds, insects, locations, may not benefit that much from detailed keywords. 
Anyway isn't DAM basically about being able to call up, locate images fast? I use both keywords, and collections, neither to near the degree any of the gurus here do. However what I've setup works for me. If I can recall correctly from viewing Kelby's tutorial on this, what he describes, promotes or teaches if you will, is what he has found works for him. He copies from his cards to a folder on his hard drive. He then sets up a Collection set with the name of the shoot. Then he has sub-collections of Picks, Selects, Final (I think). He culls, and the Picks get added to that Colllection, and the more he narrows down, they are put in those collections. So what he's able to do in seconds, find images he needs using collections. Again I think it's what Kelby has found to work well for him, and as an educator, shares that with newer people to LR, hoping that it may help them when they're having problems with keywording. Keywording is very time consuming, where using collections is not so much. How long did it take to setup your complex, detailed keywording? How long does it take to setup collections?


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 16, 2017)

Keywording does not need to be complex or detailed. At its simplest it is just tagging photos, so taking the same time as adding a photo to collections. Building a keyword hierarchy can take time, but that's a separate issue from tagging photos. Personally, I hardly bother with hierarchy. 

I think you've got to distinguish good practice from whatever happens to work for someone! Not all ways are equal.


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 16, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Phil, aren't you confusing Scott and Peter Krogh?
> 
> John


John,

Mea culpa.  I did indeed confuse the two.  Thanks for the correction.


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 16, 2017)

frozenframe said:


> I think everyone is going to have their own way(s) to manage their images, utilizing the different means LR makes available. I think how you remember/recall plays into this. There are some people that are "numbers people". They can remember dates but may struggle with what or where. While others memory is based on what or where and not when. I know there's members here that have a very detailed keyword hierarchy for wildlife, birding, ect. For those keywording is a must. Hobbyist that aren't concerned with all the proper naming conventions for birds, insects, locations, may not benefit that much from detailed keywords.
> Anyway isn't DAM basically about being able to call up, locate images fast? I use both keywords, and collections, neither to near the degree any of the gurus here do. However what I've setup works for me. If I can recall correctly from viewing Kelby's tutorial on this, what he describes, promotes or teaches if you will, is what he has found works for him. He copies from his cards to a folder on his hard drive. He then sets up a Collection set with the name of the shoot. Then he has sub-collections of Picks, Selects, Final (I think). He culls, and the Picks get added to that Colllection, and the more he narrows down, they are put in those collections. So what he's able to do in seconds, find images he needs using collections. Again I think it's what Kelby has found to work well for him, and as an educator, shares that with newer people to LR, hoping that it may help them when they're having problems with keywording. Keywording is very time consuming, where using collections is not so much. How long did it take to setup your complex, detailed keywording? How long does it take to setup collections?


Frozenframe,

Way back in the earliest days of mainframes, even before the IBM System/360 was released, programmers wrote programs that just replaced manual, paper processes. Then they realized that they could do more.  Fast forward to the release of Lightroom.  Why just replicate with Lightroom the paper (cardstock) system used previously?  Surely we can do better.  Otherwise, why not just stay with the cards?


----------



## nwmoments (Jan 17, 2017)

I sat through the SLIM class - glad it was a short one - and came to the conclusion that Kelby may know how to use Photoshop, but is not the go to guy for Lightroom.
I must concur with John, Victoria and Phil that using DAM principles is the way to go. The folders are just buckets to hold the files. The catalog is where the power is.


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 17, 2017)

well that dumb question got some action 
I need to go back through it all as there are some interesting points raised . kelby has said his slim system is not for some groups of pros so I guess he is targeting the weekend happy snapper 
I feel most of 'our system' have evolved over time of of trial and error 

Another question no one will ask: how do you search for a collection? (I'm using LR5.7) . I bet it's a real easy answer to do it .
That is one thing that has stopped me using collections more than keywords where I find it's easy enough to type  a word or even part of a word into the 'filter keywords' box at the top of the k/w list . . That will generally get me very close to the photo or photos I'm after without doing a full on library filter search


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 17, 2017)

I never have to "search for a collection". My collections are in a very logical hierarchy, so I always know which collection I need and where it is. The collections panel does have a search field, though.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 17, 2017)

Ian.B said:


> well that dumb question got some action
> I need to go back through it all as there are some interesting points raised . kelby has said his slim system is not for some groups of pros so I guess he is targeting the weekend happy snapper
> I feel most of 'our system' have evolved over time of of trial and error
> 
> ...


Ian, the way to get collections to really work for you is to use the "smart" variety.
One can use very clever Boolean searching with multiple criteria.
The Smart collection will also include future images not yet in the collection if, once they are in the library, they fit the criteria (no further work required).
If one names a Smart collection in a useful way it tells you exactly what images it contains.
If required also use collection sets to group Smart collections in a meaningful way.

I have to say that I very rarely use the "dumb" variety of collections for several reasons:
1. Every image needs to be specifically put there by me; and
2. The inclusion criteria tend not to follow any particular logic.

Smart collections, on the other hand, populate themselves exactly according to the criteria that you specify.
Of course, keywords are commonly used as either inclusion or exclusion items, but any searchable metadata is fair game.
What this means is that one's keywording and metadata capture needs to be up-to-date, consistent and accurate - but that is a whole different issue of course!

Tony Jay


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 17, 2017)

Agreed. The only reason why I use normal collections as well as smart collections is that smart collections do not support stacks, while normal collections do support that feature. I like to stack a panorama with its original shots, or an HDR with its bracketed originals and I'm sure I'm not the only one using stacks for this. Are you listening, Adobe?


----------



## rob211 (Jan 17, 2017)

One comment here hit the nail squarely on its head: *how do you search for a collection*?

IIRC you can't. Not a searchable field in normal Lr. Not in the list for filtering.

Why's that so important? cuz the whole point of adding info (i.e. putting images in various collections, which is also adding the collection name to the image so to speak) is FINDING stuff.

So look at those lists on the side panels, keywords vs collections. Keywords can go to many levels; collections meh. If the list gets long, no big deal with keywords: just filter, make a smart collection, etc. With collections? you're stuck with browsing.

And this makes no sense in practice:


shiraz said:


> - Don't use keywords (except special cases), because it takes for example a minute to think about 7 keywords for one picture. Searching that same picture in this setup takes about the same time (or less). So entering keywords for all the photos takes to much time, because you know the folder structure and so you can narrow down quickly the location of the picture.


 It also takes "a minute" to think about 7 collections for one picture. Searching, however, is impossible with collections. Sure, you can scan down the list for them and hope you can remember if you used "animals" or "wildlife" or "mammals" for that fox picture, but it's easier to even do that in the keyword list, since it has a search box right at the top, and you just check boxes.

And yeah, if you have a a very small number of pictures that collection idea would work. But you also wouldn't need Lr. Bridge or just the Finder or File Explorer would do.

And I'd disagree with giving your photos a descriptive name (although I can't tell if he means caption, folder, title, etc). Keywording is faster, and again, easier to find and manage (if you change your mind about titles and/or captions it's not quite as easy to change as with keywords. And some software even allows you to use keywords to construct captions automatically).

TL;DR: base your organization on the premise that you need the best tools to find things, assuming you'll forget stuff.


----------



## shiraz (Jan 13, 2017)

I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.
Anybody doing it the same way? I was wondering how you organise thousands of family pictures with this method? I think you get collections with large amounts of photos?
The explanation of a travel shoot is clear and a good way to organise your stuff.
But when you almost daily take pictures of your newborn child, you have a problem with his method?

Ex. collection and subcollection

Londen
--- Full Shoot (500 photos)
--- Picks (80 photos)
--- Final selects (30 photos)


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 17, 2017)

We should have the newbies _TOTALLY _confused by now 
Rob211 has said it very closely to why I don't use the collection idea too much --- mostly I drag year/month folders into a collection so I don't have to go back to library when editing . I try to keep it as simply as possible so that means it ends up completed


----------



## Hoggy (Jan 18, 2017)

Just for the record, LR6/2015 added the possibility to filter collections - just like the bar on top of the keyword panel.  It also added the possibility of using collection and published collection naming criteria in smart collections.  But yeah, not in LR5 unfortunately.

I also 2nd Johan's frustration at [smart] collections not allowing stacking.  If 1 or more of the stacked photos doesn't meet the smart collection criteria for whatever reason, it should at least display what number out of a stack (ie. "3 of 5") each photo is.  In addition, hopefully stacks will be able to cross directory boundaries at some point, as well.

What would also be handy is if whatever changes you were making that invalidated a photo's criteria for inclusion in the smart collection one is in, wouldn't immediately remove the photo.  It should wait until you move onto another image to remove it.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

The (other) problem with stacks is that they are location-based rather than image-based. If you stack images in one collection, they will not be stacked in any other collection. You have to repeat it for each collection. That defies Adobe's own logic, because they suggest that stacks are used exactly the way I want to use them: to keep a raw file and its Photoshopped tiff together, or keep an HDR file and the bracketed images together. If that is the purpose of stacking, then stacks should be defined by their image content, not by location. And then of course they should logically also apply in smart collections.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 18, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> The (other) problem with stacks is that they are location-based rather than image-based. If you stack images in one collection, they will not be stacked in any other collection. You have to repeat it for each collection. That defies Adobe's own logic, because they suggest that stacks are used exactly the way I want to use them: to keep a raw file and its Photoshopped tiff together, or keep an HDR file and the bracketed images together. If that is the purpose of stacking, then stacks should be defined by their image content, not by location. And then of course they should logically also apply in smart collections.



Maybe this is really a request worth submitting to Adobe.
I cannot imagine the coding would be too hard to do to solve this.

Tony Jay


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> Maybe this is really a request worth submitting to Adobe. I cannot imagine the coding would be too hard to do to solve this.



I did that quite some time ago, but nothing happened. I agree the coding shouldn't be hard. Apple Aperture worked this way from the very first version (that's where Adobe got the idea of stacks in the first place).


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 18, 2017)

Ah well...
Maybe it is yet to come...

Tony Jay


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 18, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> Apple Aperture worked this way from the very first version (that's where Adobe got the idea of stacks in the first place).



I hope you are joking. The idea comes from good old light tables, and stacking was already in Bridge long before Aperture. As for originality, remember that much of Aperture's UI was actually based on Extensis Portfolio - Apple recruited Aperture's product manager and lead developers directly from Extensis.

While I'm in favour of some kind of smart collection stacking, it's misleading to say Aperture had it. Aperture only had global stacks so stacking in a smart album applied globally, while Lightroom has two independent types of stacking at the folder and collection level.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

OK, maybe Adobe had stacks earlier, but at least Apple understood that a stack of images should be a stack of images no matter where you are. Adobe itself suggests that stacks are to be used to keep images together that 'naturally' belong together, such as a tiff derivative and its raw parent. If that is so, then it doesn't make sense to only stack them in the collection you just happened to be when you send that image to Photoshop. My wife and I were married in the Netherlands, but when we travel abroad we are still married.

I don't understand your last remark. Af far as I can see, Lightroom has only one type of stacking and that is location based. Stack images in a folder, and they won't be stacked in any collection they happen to be in. Stack them in a collection, and they won't be stacked in any other collection, or in their folder, or in 'All Photographs'. Unless I'm missing something, a stack you create only exists at the location you create it and that is the same for folders and collections. No difference I can see. Aperture has also one type of stacking, but that is image-based (and consequently it is indeed 'global'; independent of the location).

Anyway, I believe we had a very lengthy discussion about this somewhere else and some time ago, so let's not repeat that here all over again.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 18, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> Anyway, I believe we had a very lengthy discussion about this somewhere else and some time ago, so let's not repeat that here all over again.



We did, and until your final sentence I was thinking I should reply by pointing that out! It comes down to greater flexibility - why should one be forced to stack images the same way in different contexts?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> We did, and until your final sentence I was thinking I should reply by pointing that out! It comes down to greater flexibility - why should one be forced to stack images the same way in different contexts?



Yes, I think that ideally there should be two types of stacks: global stacks for 'married images' like a raw parent and its tiff derivative or an HDR and its bracketed exposures, and the present local stacks to stack images in a certain context only. Of course that new type of global stack could have a different name to make sure people understand the differences. Unfortunately, Adobe is very 'Develop Module centric' (and 'mobile centric') the last few years. The other modules are getting a very low priority.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 18, 2017)

Yes, though I would question your "the last few years". I actually proposed very similar stack types - way back in 2007.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Yes, though I would question your "the last few years". I actually proposed very similar stack types - way back in 2007.


----------



## tspear (Jan 18, 2017)

John, Johan,

Do you have links to the feedback item? I would vote for it. It would be useful, I have an option for auto-stacking HDR/PANO with the generated one.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

There is a request from six years ago: Lightroom: Stacking in folders and collections should be global | Photoshop Family Customer Community

Or this one: Lightroom: Make stacks Really Useful | Photoshop Family Customer Community

Automatic stacking of HDR is also requested: Lightroom: HDR merge should automatically stack with original and move to top of the stack | Photoshop Family Customer Community

So Adobe can't say they didn't know people want this...


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 18, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> Ah well...
> Maybe it is yet to come...
> 
> Tony Jay


This request probably went on "the list" that periodically gets reviewed and (re)prioritized for each planned dot-release of Lightoom CC.  My guess is that the priorities are based on their overall strategy and which features seem most important given that strategy.  If someone held me down and _forced _me to guess at their strategy, I would say


cloud-based rather than system-centric

enable any device that can support a browser and has enough memory and processing power
which means Adobe is seeking to broaden their base with consumers
which means that Adobe is less interested right now in workgroups and enterprises

subscription-based revenue model, perhaps with tiered pricing in the future depending on the type and number of screens supported and perhaps without a Photoshop option.  (I.e. no LR 7 perpetual license)
... so a cool editing feature which appealed mainly to high-end users, probably not.
... which means significant or any enhancements to Library, probably not.


----------



## tspear (Jan 18, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> This request probably went on "the list" that periodically gets reviewed and (re)prioritized for each planned dot-release of Lightoom CC.  My guess is that the priorities are based on their overall strategy and which features seem most important given that strategy.  If someone held me down and _forced _me to guess at their strategy, I would say
> 
> 
> cloud-based rather than system-centric
> ...



Phil,

There shall be NO cold water thrown on my dreams... 
But I largely agree, where we diverge is that the library MAY get enhancements. These enhancements would be aimed at making it easier for the novice user, e.g. look at the rather failed import screen rewrite. As such, some items such as HDR stacking may get slipped in.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 18, 2017)

It's difficult to say what their priorities are. If I look at Lightroom Mobile and its built-in photo app, then I think "Yes, they are more and more looking at consumers and less and less at professionals". On the other hand, Adobe is nothing without the CC apps and these are mainly professional apps. It would be a huge risk for them to ignore these customers in order to please consumers. And don't forget that professionals tend to pay for what they use, while the average (and especially the young) consumer thinks that everything on the internet should be free.

If you look at Lightroom Desktop, you see relatively new features such as HDR, Panorama, Dehaze, Guided Upright. All features that are not that interesting for snapshooters, but very interesting for more serious photographers. That's why I haven't given up hope yet.


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 18, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> It's difficult to say what their priorities are. If I look at Lightroom Mobile and its built-in photo app, then I think "Yes, they are more and more looking at consumers and less and less at professionals". On the other hand, Adobe is nothing without the CC apps and these are mainly professional apps. It would be a huge risk for them to ignore these customers in order to please consumers. And don't forget that professionals tend to pay for what they use, while the average (and especially the young) consumer thinks that everything on the internet should be free.
> 
> If you look at Lightroom Desktop, you see relatively new features such as HDR, Panorama, Dehaze, Guided Upright. All features that are not that interesting for snapshooters, but very interesting for more serious photographers. That's why I haven't given up hope yet.


Adobe would not be the first company that tries to straddle the line between consumer mass markets and professionals.  The real challenge is not if they can write the code.  It's maintaining a brand with two very different audiences.  THAT is very hard.

For those in the US:  if you want to see a company that has failed to maintain a "split brand," look at Sears.  (PM me if you want to discuss.)

Also, I'm not trying to throw cold water on anyone's dreams.  I'm just describing my educated guess as to Adobe's process for deciding which feature enhancements and bug fixes to address.


----------



## Hoggy (Jan 18, 2017)

Oh wow..  I wasn't even aware that stacking was a possibility in regular collections. I only use the smart variety, with about the only exception being to temporarily mirror a smart collection to prevent immediate removal the moment criteria is no longer met.  Like Johan, I mostly use stacks to keep together raw and tiff derivatives, and HDR's together with their sources.

However, I could see a use case for both ways of doing it..  So maybe a preference setting of whether to make them global or local to a collection is in order.  Or perhaps, such a preference that pertains to global and regular collections, but has smart collection stacks that are global to the folder/'all photographs' (which may be the only way they _could_ be done, when I think about it).

My dream is that this may come with LR7, given that their changes to allow collection name searching and smart collection criteria were added in LR6.  But then again, my crystal ball is on the fritz and in need of repair. 

They may eventually want to seriously look into diverging the product into a 'lite' version for the average consumer, and a 'pro' version for the the professionals and enthusiastic amateurs such as myself.  Or if they want to maintain only one code line, then maybe a preference option to "enable advanced features and preferences".


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 19, 2017)

Hoggy said:


> ...
> They may eventually want to seriously look into diverging the product into a 'lite' version for the average consumer, and a 'pro' version for the the professionals and enthusiastic amateurs such as myself.  Or if they want to maintain only one code line, then maybe a preference option to "enable advanced features and preferences".


I happen to think that this would be a very bad idea...

Tony Jay


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 19, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> I happen to think that this would be a very bad idea...
> 
> Tony Jay


Tony,

Which part of the earlier quote are you referring to?  It's easy enough in one codebase to turn features on and off according to the license or subscription.  Adobe does that now with LR 6 vs. CC.  For everyone not in the IT/software world, "codebase" is the complete set of programming instructions.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 19, 2017)

Hi Phil, just the bit I quoted.

I am well aware of how easy it may be to do from a programming perspective but my concerns are more on a philosophical level.
Currently CC stuff gets incorporated into the next major standalone release.
I would definitely oppose any further trend to "split" this application.
Also, who decides what gets to be in the "pro" versus "amateur" versions.

Please don't use Elements as a template for an argument because Photoshop was originally always more of an application for digital graphic artists and a plausible case could definitely be made for a "lite" version that could be aimed at those only interested in photography.
Lightroom was always an application, designed from the ground up, to be purely for photographers.
I  make no distinction between "pros" and "amateurs" as far as needed and useful functionality goes and I really don't think that Adobe should either!

My opinion

Tony Jay


----------



## Hoggy (Jan 19, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> I would definitely oppose any further trend to "split" this application.
> Also, who decides what gets to be in the "pro" versus "amateur" versions.
> ....
> Lightroom was always an application, designed from the ground up, to be purely for photographers.
> I  make no distinction between "pros" and "amateurs" as far as needed and useful functionality goes and I really don't think that Adobe should either!



You got a point there about further splitting it into lite/pro versioning.  However I'm going off their intentions to make it more beginner accessible, given the import dialog fiasco. To that end, they may want to do the 'enable advanced' preference option.  Then those of us that might want a choice of different demosaicing algorithms and the like, can get that - whilst not 'cluttering it up' for the beginners.


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 19, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> Hi Phil, just the bit I quoted.
> 
> I am well aware of how easy it may be to do from a programming perspective but my concerns are more on a philosophical level.
> Currently CC stuff gets incorporated into the next major standalone release.
> ...


Tony,

You raise good issues, and if Adobe is trying a consumer+advanced amateur+professional strategy, then they, are, or should be, grapping with all these issues.  (I said nothing about Photoshop Elements.)  But it's not just the product.  It's also the pricing.  How do you ensure that professionals and advanced amateurs don't simply use the consumer service that costs only three dollars a month.  And is Adobe smart enough to "segment" the market properly with appropriate ads, etc., for each segment.  Ads and messages that are effective for the target segment, but don't "annoy" the other segments. If Adobe talks about one-button simplicity, that could turn off the advanced+professional.  The "huge number" of editing tools would scare the daylights out of consumers, etc.

I think it can be done, but it will take time to work all this out.  And the issue of an LR 7 might get lost in all the hurly-burly.

Again, I'm not trying to take away anyone's candy, but I am trying to add a perspective here.  I could be all wrong.  Facebook or Google might buy Adobe with their lunch money.  _Apple _might buy Adobe and drop support for Windows versions of CC.  Who knows?  I don't.


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 19, 2017)

Well Adobe certainly hit a bit of a speed wobble following the launch of Lr 6.x - no question about it.
Hopefully they learn't the lessons to be learn't.

None of us knows exactly how Adobe will play - and if anybody really does then they cannot say (NDA and all that).
Speculation about what Adobe might do is just that - speculation.

My suggestion now (friendly, of course) is that we either get back on track with the original thread topic or terminate this particular thread.
The topic of Adobe's future direction can always be debated on a different sub-forum more suited to topics such as this.

Tony Jay


----------



## shiraz (Jan 13, 2017)

I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.
Anybody doing it the same way? I was wondering how you organise thousands of family pictures with this method? I think you get collections with large amounts of photos?
The explanation of a travel shoot is clear and a good way to organise your stuff.
But when you almost daily take pictures of your newborn child, you have a problem with his method?

Ex. collection and subcollection

Londen
--- Full Shoot (500 photos)
--- Picks (80 photos)
--- Final selects (30 photos)


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 19, 2017)

Tony Jay said:


> Well Adobe certainly hit a bit of a speed wobble following the launch of Lr 6.x - no question about it.
> Hopefully they learn't the lessons to be learn't.
> 
> None of us knows exactly how Adobe will play - and if anybody really does then they cannot say (NDA and all that).
> ...


Tony,

All good points.  Perhaps Victoria will set up a new sub-forum for discussions on Adobe's strategy.  It's funny how threads sometimes go off in a different direction.

Phil


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 19, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Perhaps Victoria will set up a new sub-forum for discussions on Adobe's strategy.  It's funny how threads sometimes go off in a different direction.



Yeah, not a chance. It's all speculation, since anyone who does know can't say, and it has a tendency to get heated. We'll leave those debates to other less friendly forums.


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 19, 2017)

WOW; bit of a hot thread but I will throw another can of petrol seeing someone did mentioned Bridge 

Who uses Bridge for all / most of their filing needs ? Pro and cons (??)


----------



## rhynetc (Jan 19, 2017)

Don't even have Bridge loaded on my PC


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jan 19, 2017)

Bridge and Lightroom?
It is like comparing Apples and Meat Pies.

Bridge is basically a file browser with benefits.
Lightroom is so much more, and there is much on the internet to define the difference.

A quote from the forums at CambridgeInColor-

_"You may not need or want Lightroom's image management facilities, but the combinations of Smart and regular Collections, Virtual Copies, Snaphots, Tagging, key wording and so on leave Bridge in the dust."   by Davidedric._


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 20, 2017)

What's the use of Bridge in a Lightroom world? Hm....

Well, it's better than Explorer/Finder and displays all sorts of files that Lightroom won't display, sometimes stupidly (Photoshop's PSB format) and sometimes because Adobe don't think they're part of a photo workflow. 

Bridge is also great for sorting out xmp or metadata problems. Its File Info panel, Advanced tab, shows the full xmp detail.

Its file renaming feature is also much better than Lightroom and allows you to search and replace for certain text.

But those reasons seem pretty geeky or even trivial. 

John


----------



## rob211 (Jan 20, 2017)

You come to appreciate Bridge more if you are using a variety of files, especially shared files. You can't be importing files into Lr that you might only have temp access to; much more efficient to just use a browser. Hence the "Bridge" name I expect....

The ability to make custom metadata panels is kinda cool; never did it myself but I have used some others have made. Just wish it opened all file types (although you can do stuff like reveal the sidecars and open them with a text editor). I also like the carousel-type review mode, and its list views. I am interested as well in the ability to manually create caches. Bridge is super fast already though so I haven't had reason to try it.

It's not gonna replace Lr for me, but there are times when it's a better tool than Lr (try it, eg, when someone gives you a bunch of images and you wanna browse and select only some to move to say your machine for later import into Lr. You can even rate and add other metadata then, and Lr will pick it up on import. I like that especially when I'm on the road and wanna be super fast at getting what I need off someone else's SD card and then be able to hand it back right away.


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 20, 2017)

shiraz said:


> I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.


 My version of LR , and the poor hot computer are screaming at you due the extra work load _you  _have caused after I got the bright idea of doing a big _*BIG *_organizational tidy up way back to 2004 . About 2/3 done; but I thought that two days ago also :(.  Thankfully there's only 20,000 files  and lots are being deleted . I knew I had a bit of a mess ; mostly keywords and some old out of date folder ideas, but I didn't know it was this big . Best part is I'm seeing lots of old forgotten pics

So the message is folks : no matter what system you use you need to keep up the regular digital house work or it gets  dusty and untidy .
Now; about my house :(


----------



## shiraz (Jan 21, 2017)

Ian.B said:


> extra work load _you  _have caused


You're welcome


----------

