Filmstrip View in Develop Module?

[digitaldog]

Dog, you're killing me!  I assume building 4 smart collections for Cropped, Not Cropped, Develop Settings and No Develop Settings would slow Lr down?  You guys are supposed to be talking me into Lr, not talking me out of it.

No it will not. Smart Collections rock (Dumb collections are dumb).  A Smart Collection is just like a smart playlist in iTunes. And VERY powerful. 

[dwswager]

No it will not. Smart Collections rock (Dumb collections are dumb).  A Smart Collection is just like a smart playlist in iTunes. And VERY powerful.

Cool.  I've used collections in Br, but not the smart collection feature.  Always thought of collections being more of similarities in content (lighthouses, soccer, etc.) and not attributes, but will give it a go!

Thanks!

[BradSmith]

.....You guys are supposed to be talking me into Lr, not talking me out of it.

After 60 some posts on your topic, it is obvious that it would have been far easier to talk you out of it.   

[dwswager]

After 60 some posts on your topic, it is obvious that it would have been far easier to talk you out of it.   

LOL  Unfortunately!

I was putting off learning Lr just because of the initial productivity hit that one expects.  But it was always my expectation that Lr would be better having been designed for photographers.  It has been quite shocking to learn that while there are a number of new features versus Photoshop and the Bridge and camera Raw helper apps for those that don't need the "painting" part of Photoshop, how poorly Lr was executed.  It is not that Lr is bad, but that it could have been SO much better!

[ButchM]

It is not that Lr is bad, but that it could have been SO much better!

Too bad your insight and sage wisdom wasn't on hand during the original public beta for Lr back in 2006 ... you could have saved us all from a decade of doing everything wrong.

[dwswager]

Too bad your insight and sage wisdom wasn't on hand during the original public beta for Lr back in 2006 ... you could have saved us all from a decade of doing everything wrong.

Apparently! 

Look, if you do something one way for an extended period of time, then that way seems natural and appropriate.  But if you already know a better way, or a more efficient way or a more productive way, then it no longer looks the same to you.  I would have never picked up Texting unless someone else showed me texting.  It isn't that I couldn't evaluate it and find it beneficial.  It was that I was ignorant of it and therefore had no opportunity to find it beneficial.

If someone wants to argue that the Lr way is better in some way or in some cases, I'm fine with that.  If you think it is better to copy a specific set of develop settings for every single combination of setting you wish to paste versus being able to copy once and paste any number or variation then I'm listening.  But to defend poor execution out of ownership, laziness or ignorance is foolish.  Do long time Lr users not want the program to get better (not just different, but more productive and effective)?

[john beardsworth]

If someone wants to argue that the Lr way is better in some way or in some cases, I'm fine with that.  If you think it is better to copy a specific set of develop settings for every single combination of setting you wish to paste versus being able to copy once and paste any number or variation then I'm listening.  But to defend poor execution out of ownership, laziness or ignorance is foolish.  Do long time Lr users not want the program to get better (not just different, but more productive and effective)?

I'd argue you are wrong about Lightroom's non-standard selection method, since Adobe needed to be conservative, but I agree about the non-standard Copy routine. I've often questioned why we should be forced to choose which Develop settings to copy? It's forcing you to think ahead to how the copied settings will be applied, which might work fine for the next photo, but soon breaks down.

I've always wanted Copy to be like most apps' Copy methods, copying everything. You'd then have a Paste and a Paste Special where you decide which settings to paste. But it's unlikely to change now, and is less relevant if you always work in AutoSync mode.

[dwswager]

I'd argue you are wrong about Lightroom's non-standard selection method, since Adobe needed to be conservative, but I agree about the non-standard Copy routine. I've often questioned why we should be forced to choose which Develop settings to copy? It's forcing you to think ahead to how the copied settings will be applied, which might work fine for the next photo, but soon breaks down.

I've always wanted Copy to be like most apps' Copy methods, copying everything. You'd then have a Paste and a Paste Special where you decide which settings to paste. But it's unlikely to change now, and is less relevant if you always work in AutoSync mode.

I didn't think it up, but in Bridge, You copy everything in one click of "Copy Setting".  It is when you paste that it brings up the dialog to ask what is to be pasted.  In this manner, you can use 1 copy and past one combination to any number of files and then paste a different combination to any number of other files ad infinitum.  I would love to hear the Lr team's explanation for why they do it backwards. 

I want to like Lr. I want it to be the best damn non destructive image editor possible.  I knew I would have to change some aspects of my workflow, but was hoping to keep it to a minimum.  What I don't accept is being forced into less efficient methods and giving up functionality.  There is no question that LR should be able to drop color sample points, for example.  It is implemented in ACR and would be extremely beneficial in Lr!  Few people correct totally by the numbers anymore, but color reference points are still vital.

[fdisilvestro]

QUESTION:  Is there a mechanism in Lr to filter images to only those that have custom crops or custom settings (or no custom crop or custom settings)?  I don't see that in the filter bar, but was wondering if I can either put it there or execute that filtering in some other manner.

Not natively in LR but using the plugin Any Filter, you can filter based on an extensive selection criteria and even create a collection with the results if you want.

It is not that Lr is bad, but that it could have been SO much better!

Even though I like and use several Adobe products, it seems that the criteria for LR is good at everything, excel at nothing.

[Rhossydd]

the plugin Any Filter, you can filter based on an extensive selection criteria and even create a collection with the results if you want.

Thanks for mentioning that plugin, I hadn't seen it before. Very useful and reasonably priced.

[dwswager]

Not natively in LR but using the plugin Any Filter, you can filter based on an extensive selection criteria and even create a collection with the results if you want.

Even though I like and use several Adobe products, it seems that the criteria for LR is good at everything, excel at nothing.

Thanks.  That appears useful, but truthfully, I probably just work it in Bridge.  No wonder Adobe bundles Lr and Br/ACR/Ps into the Photography Plan!

This is the type of stuff that perplexes me about Lr.  How can an application developed by the same company, following a prior application (Br) that is given away for free at this point, not have incorporated that previously developed functionality? 

In Br, there is a filter panel that can be part of any workspace (think module in Lr) and arranged in any size/configuration with other panels.  It is context sensitive such that if the files are all the same type, for example, file type is not shown so as not to clutter the panel.  It takes one click to filter all NEF files.  You can combine any combination of file attribute or keyword you want.  But the best part, is that it shows the total number of images in the group, how many images in the group have a particular attribute, and how many are currently selected!  I can't begin to explain how handy that is.  It is a real sanity check to open a folder and know there are 342 images with 1 star, 37 with 2 stars, 12 with 3 stars and 3 with 4 stars.  Or there are 400 NEF, 162 JPG, and 11 TIF files.  Or 112 images are from the D810 and 267 are from the D500.

[fdisilvestro]

In Br, there is a filter panel that can be part of any workspace (think module in Lr) and arranged in any size/configuration with other panels.  It is context sensitive such that if the files are all the same type, for example, file type is not shown so as not to clutter the panel.  It takes one click to filter all NEF files.  You can combine any combination of file attribute or keyword you want.  But the best part, is that it shows the total number of images in the group, how many images in the group have a particular attribute, and how many are currently selected!  I can't begin to explain how handy that is.  It is a real sanity check to open a folder and know there are 342 images with 1 star, 37 with 2 stars, 12 with 3 stars and 3 with 4 stars.  Or there are 400 NEF, 162 JPG, and 11 TIF files.  Or 112 images are from the D810 and 267 are from the D500.

There is a way (with limitations) to do a similar thing in LR using the Metadata filter. It only works in grid view in the Library and you can select up to 8 criteria. You can even lock it so any time you select the grid view the metadata filter is visible. After you customize it, you will get the same information you mention. It takes one click to filter by any value ad you can combine all 8 criteria.

The attached images show the metadata bar on top of the screen and the second image shows the information in the status bar, including how many images are filtered an how many has the user selected

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Now, dwswager, I understand your growing pains with LR, but you seem to be doing much better than this guy for instance: 

[dwswager]

Now, dwswager, I understand your growing pains with LR, but you seem to be doing much better than this guy for instance: 

LOL.  Actually, you are better off coming to Lr blind instead of with long history with Br/ACR.  Then everything seems magical rather than limited or misplaced.  I'm still undecided if I like ACR's tabbed interface for the tools or Lr Develop Module's scrolling strip.  Sixes I guess.

[Jglaser757]

I have skimmed thru most of this thread and can tell you from my experience , I would never ever use LR if I had the choice to do it over again. But I'm stuck until I figure out how to use bridge properly with regards to key wording like LR does and plugins. Capture one is great but all my previous work will not read properly according to their knowledge base.

LR is not the be all end all software program. There were problems with version 5 and constant slow down of software, then there was the dumb down version for non photographers until pro's revolted and it was restored. There have been countless other bugs in the software. Tons of growing pains over the years and it will continue to have them( my prediction).

The only positives I see now are the key wording, Pano And HDR algorithm, and the plugin interaction.
I do all heavy lifting in LR but ACR can do most of that and then I do all fine detailed work in CC. I never ever convert to BW in LR. It is ok but lacks the control and finesse of CC( reference fromVincent Versace Oz to Kansas) .

[dwswager]

I have skimmed thru most of this thread and can tell you from my experience , I would never ever use LR if I had the choice to do it over again. But I'm stuck until I figure out how to use bridge properly with regards to key wording like LR does and plugins. Capture one is great but all my previous work will not read properly according to their knowledge base.

LR is not the be all end all software program. There were problems with version 5 and constant slow down of software, then there was the dumb down version for non photographers until pro's revolted and it was restored. There have been countless other bugs in the software. Tons of growing pains over the years and it will continue to have them( my prediction).

The only positives I see now are the key wording, Pano And HDR algorithm, and the plugin interaction.
I do all heavy lifting in LR but ACR can do most of that and then I do all fine detailed work in CC. I never ever convert to BW in LR. It is ok but lacks the control and finesse of CC( reference fromVincent Versace Oz to Kansas) .

Bottom line is there are some work flow items best done in Lr and some best done in Br/ACR.  There is also functionality only available in Lr and some others only available in Br.  The key is to figure out which tool is best for what and when.  Hopefully, someday, the Lr team will make it a true one stop shop until you really need to go to Ps for bitmapped images.

But you are correct, Lr is not the be all, end all some people keep praising it as.  In fact, I read a quote from Scott Kelby where he compared Br to the kit lens that comes with a camera.  To be fair to Kelby, this quote was written when Lr was in V3 and Br was fairly weak.  But there are ignorant users running around thinking Lr is some unrivalled killer app when FOR SOME TASKS, Br/ACR runs rings around it.

[john beardsworth]

Well, what are those tasks.... Viewing all types of files - that's important. File renaming is another, but for rare requirements, and examination of xmp metadata, if you ever really need that. I think that's about all. And let's not rewrite history - Bridge has barely changed since Lr1.0.

[dwswager]

Well, what are those tasks.... Viewing all types of files - that's important. File renaming is another, but for rare requirements, and examination of xmp metadata, if you ever really need that. I think that's about all. And let's not rewrite history - Bridge has barely changed since Lr1.0.

ROTFLMAO!  If you don't KNOW that Br/ACR has changed in the last 9 years, you have no basis for discussion!  Not sure when Br added Collections and Smart Collections, but pretty confident it was not there in 2007.

One of the biggest benefits is the infinite customization of the interface which can be saved into individual WORKSPACES.  One can group tools (Tabs in attached image) into any configuration of frames and then resize and position those frames however the user deems best for the particular task they are trying to execute.  I have several different workspaces saved for different tasks.  For example, being able to search on ANY attribute or metadata is not even possible in Lr without doing some sort of backflips. 

I like Lr.  I just wish the Br/ACR team and Lr team would get together and make Lr Pro! 

[john beardsworth]

I have used Bridge continually ever since it was introduced, it has barely changed since Lightroom, and it's about time that you were called out on your assertions. Half of the changes since Lightroom are things they added and then removed (eg the Output panel) or where they've changed the underpinnings but left the UI unchanged (eg 64 bit, scripting, definition of File Info panels). Fiddling with panel layouts or "workspace customisation" was there when it started, as were collections, though I'm not sure when smart collections were added - or why, given their problems with scalability or limitations (eg with offline files). Even if they are post-Lightroom, Bridge's smart collections are comfortably in my "barely".

Bridge remains just a glorified Finder/Explorer shackled to demands from its legacy of photographic users and failing to satisfy its ambition to be a bridge between Adobe's non-photographic applications. Lightroom does much more but is dedicated to typical photographic workflows, has built-in workspaces dedicated to those workflows, and safeguards your pictures and work in ways that Bridge, as a Finder/Explorer substitute, cannot.

All I would take from Bridge is the ability to catalogue all types of assets, and a couple of obscure details from the rename panel (string substitution and changing the extension case).

[ButchM]

I have used Bridge continually ever since it was introduced, it has barely changed since Lightroom, ...

I agree, I also have used Bridge and Lightroom since their respective introduction. Though I do not consider myself a complete exert in either, my experience is Bridge has it's place, but it too is not 'all that.'

Ignorance, and the historical perspective of Bridge/ACR vs Lr RAW image workflow options can be a two-way street. While they both have their issues as well as their distractions and shortcomings ... evaluation of these options and assessing one is superior over the other is purely subjective opinion and not empirical fact.

That is why I pointed out earlier in this discussion if perhaps dwswager had been around during Lightroom's formative stages, he would not be ignorant as to why certain tools and workflow adoptions were implemented in the manner they were in Lightroom. While I would never begrudge anyone the freedom to express their opinion on such matters, it would be helpful to all concerned, if that appraisal was tempered by experience and perspective formed by long term use of the both options and not short term evaluation of one, trying to force the competing solutions to behave identically. Lightroom was never intended to be Bridge II. While not perfect in any way, Lr is it's own entity and has it's own goals and pathway.

Bridge/ACR and Lightroom, while similar in the end goals, for many users, they are entirely two different methods for achieving those ends. They never were, nor are they likely to ever be, identical in form and function.

For me, that's a good thing.