# Weighty questions about cataloguing



## Photographe (Mar 23, 2011)

Folders, collections, virtual copies, stars and flags and other attributes.  The interact in funny ways.

You can't have virtual copies in different folders but  think you can have them in different collections.  You can flag one photo in one collection but leave it unflagged in another.  Stars (I think) apply across collections, but not across virtual copies.

At first glance it seems like a hopeless morass, but there must be a rhyme and reason for it all, and ways to take advantage of it.

Has anyone seen this info set out neatly somewhere along with advice on how to use it?


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 23, 2011)

My relatively unhelpful answer is that the programmers had choices to make ... and so the software you have in front of you is the result of those choices. Yes, they could have made other choices that would seem more sensible to you, but they would seem less sensible to others. 

The only thing I can say is that I simply learned what does and does not work, and I accept it the way it is. I don't think there is a global clarifying theory on this issue. I'm happy to be proved wrong, if that's the case.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Mar 23, 2011)

> You can't have virtual copies in different folders but  think you can have them in different collections.


This makes perfect sense when you consider what a Folder is, what a Collection is, and what a Virtual Copy is.

A Folder is a folder/directory on your disk.  A Collection is an arbitrary collection of photographs.  A Virtual Copy is a copy of one of your existing photographs, based on the same underlying file.  Since it's the same file, naturally it can't be in another Folder...  But since it's a different photo, it can be in a different Collection.



> You can flag one photo in one collection but leave it unflagged in another.


The canonical use case for this is two collections, once for Mother of the Bride and one for Mother of the Groom.  They may start from the same set of proofs, but will make different selections.



> Stars (I think) apply across collections, but not across virtual copies.


Star ratings (and color labels) are global, and apply to the photo across all environments (folders/collections).  But a Virtual Copy is a different photo, so it may not get the same rating or color label.  You might really like one version but not like another, for example.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 25, 2011)

How about Metadata--does that propogate to virtual copies?  I would guess not.

And then you have the added wrinkle that virtual copies are not visible to Bridge.  I hear that snapshots are visible to Bridge, but I have not been able to find out how.  Do stacks work well with virtual copies?

My main question, is has any book or tutorial dealt with this stuff at an advanced level?  I haven't seen any books that do.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Mar 25, 2011)

Metadata propagates to virtual copies when they are created.  After that, they're two separate photos.  Since they're in the same folder, they can be stacked.

Snapshots are visible in Bridge because they can be stored as XMP data.  If you write out XMP data, then Bridge can see it.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 25, 2011)

How about stacks and collections: do those play well together?

How do you see the snapshots in Bridge?  Do you have to look in metadata?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Mar 25, 2011)

Stacks only work in Folders.  I don't have a good explanation for why that is, though.

I don't use Bridge, so I can't comment on that one.  Hopefully someone else will jump in on that and on the book recommendation question.


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 25, 2011)

Photographe said:


> How about stacks and collections: do those play well together?
> 
> How do you see the snapshots in Bridge?  Do you have to look in metadata?



Stacks only work in folders because of how Adobe has chosen to record the composition of stacks - by the combination of folder+filename(not including full folder path). I'm not sure whether this was primarily because that's how they wanted to limit stacking, or simply the unforeseen consequence of weak database design, but it wasn't the only way they could have recorded stack composition. For example the best choice in my view would have been to map stacks to the photo's unique ID - which would have permitted cross-folder stacking. Another alternative would be container + photo ID, where a container is a folder or collection, and this would have permitted stacking in collections too.

In Bridge, you can see snapshots in File Info > Advanced - under camera-raw-saved-settings. Or launch Adobe Camera Raw and go to the Snapshots tab. but why bother with Bridge any more?



Photographe said:


> My main question, is has any book or tutorial dealt with this stuff at  an advanced level?  I haven't seen any books that do.


That's because most books are written by photographers and fluffy graphics types who have approached Lightroom from Photoshop and don't understand databases and catalogues. Peter Krogh's The DAM Book (I tech-edited chunks of the 2nd edition) is one of the few that adopts a more conceptual approach.

John


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 25, 2011)

If you are using Lightroom, there seems to be no reason to continue using Bridge (in my opinion)


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 25, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> That's because most books are written by photographers and fluffy graphics types who have approached Lightroom from Photoshop and don't understand databases and catalogues



I wish I had said that!


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 25, 2011)

Without mentioning any names..... 

John


----------



## Photographe (Mar 26, 2011)

Does the DAM Book (2nd ed) get deeply into LR3, or Expression Media?


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 26, 2011)

It's more high level, though uses examples from LR (not any specific version). As I think you know from the first edition, it's heavy on basic principles that you can then apply to your circumstances.

John


----------



## Photographe (Mar 26, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> If you are using Lightroom, there seems to be no reason to continue using Bridge (in my opinion)



I see why you would say that.  For me, there are lots of reasons to use Bridge, some objective (supports more media formats, integrates better with Premiere, enables sharing with people/accounts who don't have access to my catalogue) and some subjective (frankly once in a while I get tired of LR's dark and funky, backwards interface )   Also, many people (me included) prefer Bridge to LR when the focus is on a small number of known photos rather than the catalogue as a whole or large numbers of photos.


----------



## dj_paige (Mar 26, 2011)

Photographe;82324  Also said:
			
		

> Lightroom lets you focus on a small number of known photos, if you so desire.
> 
> Lightroom allows sharing photos with people/accounts who don't have access to your catalogue (especially if they have Bridge).
> 
> In my opinion, one of the major advantages of Lightroom is its organizational tools. Putting some images in Lightroom, and some not in Lightroom where you can use Bridge on them, is the essence of disorganization.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 27, 2011)

dj_paige said:


> Putting some images in Lightroom, and some not in Lightroom where you can use Bridge on them, is the essence of disorganization.


 
That's not what I would do (at least not willingly, but LR does not support audio formats, many video format--despite the hoopla about video support, and even some photo formats including their own Photoshop files).  However, I do often prefer to look at my media files through Bridge even though they might be in the LR catalogue.  LR is very good for processing a large number of files, but I (and many others) prefer using Bridge when working on individual files.  Like I said, it's partly a subjective preference, although it is rooted in LR shortcomings and idiosyncrasies.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

Another reason to use Bridge: if you upload pictures to Adobe's own Photoshop.com website, there is no way to do it directly from Lightroom but it can be done very easily from Bridge.  Unfortunately, Lightroom does not communicate it's collections to Bridge so I have to think of a way of making the handoff.


----------



## RikkFlohr (Mar 28, 2011)

The Photoshop.com is addressed in another thread. There are a couple of work-arounds to do this involving either the Post-processing in the Export dialog or the auto-loader watched folder.  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/472633 is a thread that discusses this functionality omission and contains information from an Adobe Employee regarding such. That having been said, it sounds like if Photoshop.com survives as a viable entity (I have yet to meet in-person anyone using it), LR will have export functionality eventually.

No argument: There are a few isolated reasons to use Bridge over Lightroom, yes.  I would love to autostack panos and HDRs ala Bridge for one example. There are many more reasons (if you are a photographer and not a graphic designer) to use Lightroom over Bridge.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

RikkFlohr said:


> No argument: There are a few isolated reasons to use Bridge over Lightroom, yes.  I would love to autostack panos and HDRs ala Bridge for one example. There are many more reasons (if you are a photographer and not a graphic designer) to use Lightroom over Bridge.



For me, the reasons are not isolated but pretty crucial.  It's not one or the other for me; both have their place and work side by side.  For me, LR is about quantity.  If I were a large format photographer who scanned a couple of negatives a week (which I am, but I also shoot DSLR and video), I would not buy LR at all.  Frankly, both Bridge and LR need a lot of improvement and tighter integration with other Adobe products.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

RikkFlohr said:


> The Photoshop.com is addressed in another thread. There are a couple of work-arounds to do this involving either the Post-processing in the Export dialog or the auto-loader watched folder.  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/472633 is a thread that discusses this functionality omission and contains information from an Adobe Employee regarding such. That having been said, it sounds like if Photoshop.com survives as a viable entity (I have yet to meet in-person anyone using it), LR will have export functionality eventually.



I actually expected a lot from photoshop.com it because it was by Adobe.  It's a good service for delivering photos to a few individuals (e.g. clients).  Adobe is a weird bird.  The LR group often does not seem to speak to/support/be supported by the rest of the company, which makes me very sad and worried about their future.  [2 years to write a simple plugin?? Incomplete support for .psd files??  No integration whatsoever with Premiere Pro??  Adobe employees asking in a public forum how .mts files work, when .mts is supposedly supported by Premiere Pro and Premiere Elements??  A bizarre interface that looks markedly worse and does not function nearly as well as any product from the Adobe CS5 package??]


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 28, 2011)

Lightroom's raison d'etre was in fact to be different, designed from the ground up and not simply copying what had gone before or going for a standard Creative Suite look. It wasn't designed to do everything, but for the vast majority of activities in a narrowly defined workflow, and to do so more quickly and with multiple images. There's probably only no Photoshop.com plugin because no-one has asked Jeff Friedl to write one! Incomplete psd support? Maybe - if you can't read the warnings about "maximise compatibility". Premiere Pro - why should it integrate with that? If it's needed, it can be done via the plug-in architecture.

John


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> Incomplete psd support? Maybe - if you can't read the warnings about "maximise compatibility".
> John


 
That's not very user friendly.  I have hundreds of psd files from before Lightroom was a dream.


----------



## johnbeardy (Mar 28, 2011)

But other programs were around, and the message was pretty clear - explicitly so.

John


----------



## RikkFlohr (Mar 28, 2011)

We differ there. I never expected anything from photoshop.com. It looked like a dead end to me. I still haven't found a use for it that older, more well-established services do not already supply-and better. And for those services, there is ample Lightroom support.  Much of which came about only since the 3.0 release. Previously it was relegates solely to 3rd party developers. 

Appearances can be deceiving. LR group does get attention.  They are currently the market share leader in their category. They and the Photoshop/Camera Raw teams work well together. I know this for fact. 

I am not sure what you are speaking to regarding incomplete support for PSD files. What is the glaring omission from the PSD support? I think it fortunate that support exists at all as the PSD file not being created by any current digital camera. We could have been relegated to TIFF as a transport vehicle. 

As to your .mts question, Adobe offers many products across a vast array of disciplines it is not scandalous that an employee not know what they are.  Software development is segmented and specialized.  I am relieved to hear them ask rather than BS their way through. Input from professionals and users and understanding how that relates to workflow starts with asking seemingly dumb questions sometimes. It is better than being ignored. 

Bizarre interface?  This was designed ground-up for photographers and workflow. I like the LR interface and would hate to see it become like the rest of the CS programs. Its mission is different and fine-tuned with input from many professionals.  Yes, it could be better, but CSifying is not the answer. 

You have to keep in mind that Digital Photography is in its adolescence compared to the world of scanning and Desktop Publishing. Video from DSLRs is in its infancy.  Considering that video was first recognized in the 3.0 release and we are just seeing 3.4 starting to surface in release candidacy, I don't think lack of integration is surprising.  

At the top of this forum is a feature request form. True deficiencies with well-thought solutions are always welcome and if a good idea, supported by the community. It is the best way to reach Adobe and let them know what is needed.  I am not an Adobe employee but I am a champion for this program.  If it weren't the best out there for my needs, I wouldn't defend nor support it. 

As always, these are simply my impressions and everyone's mileage may vary.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> But other programs were around, and the message was pretty clear - explicitly so.
> 
> John



 John,

You recall a time when TIFF files didn't support layers, Photoshop was very cool, and hard drives were expensive.  That's why I did it. I knew I was taking a chance, but they could have been more user friendly rather than abandoning the format like that with a program that they call "Photoshop Lightroom" mind you.  Now I am smarter and use TIFF files, but not smart enough to find an alternative to Lightroom.  Right, there is no alternative, which is why they get away with so much.  You'll note that in the Adobe forum posting above the Adobe employee promised the photoshop plugin nearly TWO YEARS ago, and this is a simple plugin to support their own service, which plugin they're already written for Bridge without any hoopla.  As for the interface, they should have stuck to something more tried and true.  Apple, for example, doesn't have the silly and counterproductive dichotomy between "Library" and "Develop" panels in their Aperture program (which I would not use; why trade one oligopoly for a bigger one?).  Why integrate with Premiere Pro you ask?  I know you've said that you're not into video, but Premiere Pro is a video editor and Lightroom is Adobe's only real media organizer.  That's why they need to integrate, by which I mean share metadata.  But they really don't speak to each other.  Honestly.  There are forum postings where Lightroom employees ask the audience how an .mts file works.  The audience sent Wikipedia links (how embarrassing is that?), which Wikipedia articles I think they are still studying because two years have passed and still no .mts file support (.mts files are pretty important in the amateur video world, being supported by Panasonic and others).

Anyway, I do appreciate the help and support from this forum.  I will try to be more positive in the future, because I am stuck with LR for the foreseable future.  How is that for positive


----------



## Photographe (Mar 23, 2011)

Folders, collections, virtual copies, stars and flags and other attributes.  The interact in funny ways.

You can't have virtual copies in different folders but  think you can have them in different collections.  You can flag one photo in one collection but leave it unflagged in another.  Stars (I think) apply across collections, but not across virtual copies.

At first glance it seems like a hopeless morass, but there must be a rhyme and reason for it all, and ways to take advantage of it.

Has anyone seen this info set out neatly somewhere along with advice on how to use it?


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

RikkFlohr said:


> We differ there. I never expected anything from photoshop.com. It looked like a dead end to me. I still haven't found a use for it that older, more well-established services do not already supply-and better. And for those services, there is ample Lightroom support.



Rikk,

I liked the nifty slideshow feature (which they removed and now charge money for).  What services do you recommend that are supported by LR?  Flickr and Facebook do not seem to be the answer for me; I have no idea what Smugmug is.  Anything else supported by LR?

By the way I appreciate your thoughtful response.  I wrote my rant before I saw your response, and wanted to acknowledge it.  I have big issues with the direction they're headed and the (lack of) progress on many fronts between 2 and 3, but will keep it productive going forward.

(As for psd files, if you don't click "maximize compatability" LR does not recognize; I ended up converting hundreds of psd files in order to include them in my catalogue.  It also does not support .png files.  I have thousands of those.  Bridge reads them.  LR does not support pdf files.  A media organizer should have better support for media, IMHO.)


----------



## RikkFlohr (Mar 28, 2011)

Photographe said:


> Rikk,
> (As for psd files, if you don't click "maximize compatability" LR does not recognize; I ended up converting hundreds of psd files in order to include them in my catalogue.  It also does not support .png files.  I have thousands of those.  Bridge reads them.  LR does not support pdf files.  A media organizer should have better support for media, IMHO.)



I consider that to be a Photoshop issue rather than a LR issue. Bridge reads them because you can't own Bridge without PS. There is a world of people who have LR but not PS. LR is built around getting your photos in and out of PS, not around getting old PS files (which may or may not have been photos originally). I certainly don't think we need a PS engine embedded within a nimble (small footprint) software package like Lightroom.  I solved the issue by creating a batch that updated all my PS files across a weekend. 

I would have to know a great deal about your workflow to recommend a service for you. What are the things you want an on-line sharing service to do that you can't get done today? Look into Zenfolio as well.


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

I want an online service with a clean interface, fast trouble-fee uploading and viewing, a nice customizable presentation, and secure sharing with recipients.

Generally uploading jpgs is sufficient, but I can foresee the need to upload DNGs in the future.

One-click uploading from LR would be nice (rather exporting or publishing, waiting for that process to finish, uploading, and then deleting.)


----------



## Photographe (Mar 28, 2011)

RikkFlohr said:


> I consider that to be a Photoshop issue rather than a LR issue.



Photoshop CS5 or Photoshop Lightroom 3?  Sorry, I couldn't resist


----------

