# Convert Collection to Collection Set?



## BobRockefeller (Dec 24, 2013)

Another in the "Aperture guy working in Lightroom" series...

Once a _collection_ has been created and images have been added, is it possible to convert the _collection_ into a _collection set_ so that other _collections_ (perhaps a _book_, or a _smart album_) can be grouped there?


----------



## RikkFlohr (Dec 24, 2013)

Not directly. 

A Collection contains only photos or videos. A Collection Set contains Collections (static or smart) and finished goods (including Prints, Web Galleries, Slideshows, Books,etc). 

Your best bet is to create a Collection Set to hold it all: the original collection plus the other goodies.


----------



## BobRockefeller (Dec 24, 2013)

This is frustrating. I continue to hear that Lightroom's collections and folders are both first class citizens and that Aperture's virtual folders are limiting. But my results are always that there are many things I can do with Aperture's folders that I can't do with Lightroom - either its folders or its collections.

For example:
• Can't reorder collections (alpha sort only)
• Can't reorder folders (alpha sort only)
• Can't convert a collection to a collection set
• Can't delete an image from it's collection, the catalog and the hard drive without some weird keyboard multi-fingered combination
• Can't move an image from it's folder and have that change matched in it's mirroring collection

Bob


----------



## clee01l (Dec 24, 2013)

BobRockefeller said:


> This is frustrating. I continue to hear that Lightroom's collections and folders are both first class citizens and that Aperture's virtual folders are limiting. But my results are always that there are many things I can do with Aperture's folders that I can't do with Lightroom - either its folders or its collections.
> 
> For example:
> • Can't reorder collections (alpha sort only)
> ...


As I mentioned in your other post on Collection naming, Collections are always sorted based upon the sort order defined by the operating system.  The Folder panel is a reflection of the filesystem which again uses the sort order of the operating system 

Collections are "buckets". Virtual in the sense that they have no relationship with the filesystem organization.  An image file can exist in one and only one folder.  This is a constraint of the filesystem.  OTOH, in LR, an image can be a member of many collections. And many images can be members of one collection yet organized by the filesystem in many different folders

The file location of an image in LR in not important.  The folder panel is available in LR only as a convenience so that file operations in Finder can be performed simultaneously with updates about the image path in the LR catalog. 

You can dump every image into one folder on import. LR won't care.  You can spend lots of time organizing your images into descriptive folder names before import and LR still does not care.  You should be able to hide your folder panel and use keywords and smart collections to find any image in your LR catalog.  

I use a modified version of John Beardworth's "Workflow Smart Collections".  Modified to extend to Smart Publish collections in the Publish panel.  I have only one static collection named "00.00 - Current Work Target"  All the rest are Smart Collections that used metadata and keywords to populate.  Although I do occasionally create other temporary static collections outside of my workflow, these are for a temporary convenience.  My workflow consists of three overarching steps:

Press the {Import} button.
Add keywords, Titles, Captions and Develop adjustments.
Press the {Publish} button

If you let it, LR can be your Image data organizer (DAM).  Time that you spend not adding keywords, Titles and Captions and not doing post processing development is inefficient when you have to power of a tool that can do all of these things for you.

Coming from Aperture, you are struggling with the differences.  These differences should not be described as better or worse, but just different.   Aperture being an Apple product tends to hide the organizational complexity from you. Aperture tries to minimize the organization complexity by restricting how you _can _do things. Lightroom recognizes that there are different work styles and more than one type of organization scheme by trying to embrace all of them to some degree. 
Organizing by filesystem Folder has some severe limitations imposed by the filesystem.  Because of that, DAM tools were created.  Aperture and LR are examples of different implementations of the same DAM principle.  Both address the weaknesses inherent in the file system organizational structure by creating pseudo folder structures that don't contain these weaknesses. 

You chose to come to LR  from Aperture for a reason. Probably because Aperture development has been constrained for several years now and is beginning to fall behind other DAM tools.  Both Aperture and LR  (and Corel's AfterShotPro) incorporate image post processing with image organization. There are other DAM tools (like PhotoMechanic) that just do the image organization.  I'm not going to say that LR is the only way or the best way. But it is a good solution and can be used effectively to permit you to find any image that you need almost instantly.


----------



## BobRockefeller (Dec 24, 2013)

Cletus,

I understand the DAM concept pretty well and implement it within Aperture's virtual folders via smart albums, not that differently than you. But these points still get in my way:

• Can't reorder collections (alpha sort only)
• Can't reorder folders (alpha sort only)
• Can't convert a collection to a collection set
• Can't delete an image from it's collection, the catalog and the hard drive without some weird keyboard multi-fingered combination

For example, I have some reference images that I rarely use and some pictures tagged Richmond. I'd like the collection of reference images at the bottom of the collection pane, not near the Richmond smart collection. Can't do that. And numbering gets to be a problem as soon as you need a number between numbers. There are only so many special characters to lead the collection name with. And does * sort before @ or after? 

If I start a collection, maybe a smart one, and later discover I need smart collections within that one, I can't. I have to create a collection set from scratch.

Maybe I'm still missing a work flow trick?


----------



## BobRockefeller (Dec 24, 2013)

clee01l said:


> Aperture tries to minimize the organization complexity by restricting how you _can _do things.



I don't see this at all. I haven't yet found something I could not do in Aperture's organizational system. If you want to organize in "regular" folders, you can go ahead and knock yourself out. If you'd rather use newer DAM concepts, there are lots of ways to use smart albums and searches.



clee01l said:


> You chose to come to LR  from Aperture for a reason. Probably because Aperture development has been constrained for several years now and is beginning to fall behind other DAM tools.



This is exactly true. You can tell I'm not here for the Library module!  If I could splice the Lightroom Develop module into Aperture's Adjustments pane, I would be happy indeed.


----------



## clee01l (Dec 24, 2013)

BobRockefeller said:


> ...You can tell I'm not here for the Library module!  If I could splice the Lightroom Develop module into Aperture's Adjustments pane, I would be happy indeed.


The development module is an integrated ACR with a custom LR user interface.  You can get that same ACR version in PS or PSE.  Aperture permits the use of External editors.  Perhaps that is your solution.  There is no reason that post processing needs to be tightly integrated with the DAM tool. There are other RAW converters and editors that have reviews that are comparable to those for ACR.  You might investigate these too.

FWIW, my first encounter with LR was not any better than yours.  And I explored Aperture briefly after converting to LR.  It and iPhoto come across to me as an obfuscating bloated POS. The HD is clogged with too many intermediate images and Aperture wants to hide your master originals from you and changing that aspect is not intuitive.  Changes to Aperture have dumbed it down to iPhoto user levels which does not help advance it as a professional DAM tool.  I'm sure that an experienced Aperture user can refute most of my negative observations about Aperture.  But they represent truly my first impressions. Others and I are here to help you with your transition.  Try to keep an open mind and look for ways to achieve your organizational goals instead of ways of trying to do what you have _always _been doing.


----------



## Selwin (Dec 24, 2013)

BobRockefeller said:


> Maybe I'm still missing a work flow trick?


Hi Bob, I've read your questions with great interest. I'm not at all familiar with Aperture though. Let's take a side step to drilling machines. Some say they need a drilling machine that incorporates this or that mechanical or electrical feature, while really they should first describe the holes they want to make and which requirements those should meet. It's not until we know more about those hole requirements, that we can take the step to discussing drilling machines.
You repeatedly discuss the drilling machine LR cannot seem to provide. May I suggest you start describing the holes you would like LR to drill for you? In turn, we could then suggest a set of drilling machines that you could use for your requirements.
LR "holes" can be your requirements for work flow, for organising, for developing and printing, and how you like doing that. Describe them without the drilling machines.

i'll be listening


----------



## BobRockefeller (Dec 24, 2013)

Drilling machines. 

I guess I started the thread because I wanted to drill a small hole that I could later make larger. The Aperture drilling machine makes that easy. I couldn't figure out how to make the Lightroom drilling machine do that. That is, if I started off with a collection and later determined I needed it it be a collection set, could I do that?

And the answer is no.

Why would I want to do that? Well, in the process of experimenting, I created a collection and I put some photos in it. Good. Then I decided I wanted a smart collection in there to auto-select the 3+ star images. Can't do that.

Not all drilling machines can drill all holes.


----------



## johnbeardy (Dec 25, 2013)

Smart collections apply to the whole catalogue, unlike Aperture smart albums which apply to thir parent project. To force a smart collection to apply to a specific collection or OS folder, include the latter's name as a criterion.

In this area Aperture's drill is better.

John


----------



## Selwin (Dec 25, 2013)

Good! So you were experimenting and you used a Collection (many here call them "dumb" Collections as opposed to Smart Collections - but not to indicate they're useless) and you found you also need a Smart Collection to do what you want. That's good info. LR simply works differently but it can do what you want as long as you adapt to its way of doing things. 

Now this is just a tiny part of information about your entire workflow requirements. I'd like to know more. When I had built my own workflow Smart Collections in Lightroom (a series of SC's to figure out which images still needed work), and when I stumbled across johnbeardy's set of workflow SC's, they brought a smile to my face because they originated from the very same idea. However they were implemented completely differently.

I would like to suggest you have a look at john's workflow smart collections. See what you think of the idea behind them and if this could be something you could use. Then build upon that to create your own workflow in Lightroom. It's just a suggestion to find out which total package of holes you are wanting to drill.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## camner (Dec 31, 2013)

FWIW, when I first started working with LR seriously (about 6 months ago), I kept muttering (unmentionable words) under my breath and feeling I was running into obstacles because of design features I didn't like.  What I soon realized was that I had created a nice workflow and organization before that worked with the software I then had, and what I was subconsciously doing was trying to make LR mimic the workflow and organization I had developed for the other software.  Talk about drilling a square peg into a round hole! (sorry for the mixed metaphor...).  I realized (finally?) that every piece of software has its own organizational structure and logic and trying to keep my old system going was worse than useless, because not only would LR not do that well, but I was failing to take advantage of all the nice things LR DOES do so well.

I can't say that even after 6 months that I feel I'm fully taking advantage of all of the things LR does well to keep images organized, but once I stopped trying to force my preconceived ideas on LR and lurked around here (and asked lots of questions) to help me understand how people used LR to organize their images, I got to be a very happier camper.

[Note: this is not a LR vs Aperture comment....I've only dabbled in the latter and claim no knowledge of its relative advantages/disadvantages]


----------



## Selwin (Dec 31, 2013)

I did that too. I never used to read manuals and I usually try to sort it out the way I think things should be, unless I get stuck. Within the first year of using LR (I started 6 years ago), I've gradually come to realise that fully adapting to the LR design philosophy was to my own advantage. 

That said, I have some great images from that first year that have been processed very well. It's not really the final product that is to be improved, it's the ease with which the products are achieved.

A couple of months ago I started to intensify my activity on this forum and even after 6 years I have learned about some additional stuff I never cared to practise. It's been very worthwhile for my own workflow. And it's very rewarding to help other people out along the way.


----------



## NJHeart2Heart (Jan 10, 2014)

BobRockefeller said:


> Another in the "Aperture guy working in Lightroom" series...
> 
> Once a _collection_ has been created and images have been added, is it possible to convert the _collection_ into a _collection set_ so that other _collections_ (perhaps a _book_, or a _smart album_) can be grouped there?



Hi there Bob,
I have read with interest your inquiries at the forum here.  I have much less experience than most here, but just wanted to give you two thoughts directly related to your question:

It seems to me that creating a collection set named the same as your initial collection, and simply adding the initial collection plus extras would give you what you need, and pretty quickly? As JohnBeardy said, you can create a static collection, then you can create a smart collection that indicates you want all 3+ ratings in that static collection (2 criteria). You can put both of those collections into a collection set, so they're together.  Further if you want to expand, then you can simply add photos to your initial static collection, and the smart collection would automatically filter the 3+ from the newly added photos and place them in the smart collection.

You mentioned later that you were frustrated by the alpha-only nature of collections and said that numbers won't work.  However, the way John Beardsworth's workflow collections are organized would seem a good compromise.  I believe it is whole digit, decimal, tenth digit, 100th digit.  would numbering your collections as such not accomplish the flexibility you need?  Granted, it's definitely not as easy as drag and drop, but renaming collections is a pretty quick process.  So, you could start out with collections 1.00, 2.00..... and then when you need something in between you split the difference... say 1.50, 2.50. and then as needed, you can split those down... 1.25, 2.25.. I *think* this would line them up the way you'd want them, even if you're not a math person (like myself).

Take it or leave it- just thought I'd add a simple answer to what sounded initially like a relatively simple question(s).

Good luck!
Dawn


----------

