P: Ability to sync Lightroom Classic keywords with the Lightroom Ecosystem

Hi Dan, perhaps it doesn’t relate. I’m not claiming any like you described.

It’s a work around that I use. In Lightroom Classic I use keywords to find photos quick. In Lightroom Mobile I’m frustrated because I cannot search for photos tagged with keywords from Classic. Keyword based smart albums are now indirectly accessible on my Lightroom Mobile. If I’m on the go and want to show a picture of my dog I just bring up the “Dogs” album that is automatically synced from the keyword “Dogs”.

I thought since other people on this thread are suffering from missing keyword sync they might find value in my work around. In that way I think it related to the thread.

I don't see how this relates to this thread?  Are you claiming that by syncing a dumb collection, that has cloud sync turned on, with the contents of a smart collection that somehow that syncs keyword changes to/from the cloud?   Unless the plugin is doing something under the covers wtih smart previews I don't see how that could happen.

I posted this before, but here it is again

PROPOSED WAY (for Adobe) TO SYNC KEYWORDS BETWEEN CLASSIC AND CLOUDY

 

Even keeping the constraint that LR Classic uses hierarchical KW's and LR Cloud uses a linear (flat) KW structure, this problem can be solved.  There are, of course, some technical aspects but the main rationale I've heard so far for not doing this is the logical problem of how to map a hierarchical structure to a linear structure.  One solution is to convert LR Cloud to a hierarchical structure but putting that aside, here is one possible solution to that problem:

 

1)  In LR Classic, Adobe can add check boxes in the create/edit keyword dialog for

·         "Sync this KW with LR Cloud"

·         "Sync Containing KW's with LR Cloud"

·         "Sync Synonyms with LR Cloud (would become regular KW's in LR Cloud)”

2)  . In LR Classic, whenever you mark a Keyword to Sync (as suggested above), it checks to assure that another keyword with the same name but under a different parent – or no parent - is not also marked to Sync.  If it finds one it would deny the request to mark it for sync with a message.  In this way, there would no longer be a case where a single keyword in LR Cloudy could map to more than one keyword in LR Classic.  In our example, if one wanted both occurrences of "red" to sync, the user would need to rename one or both of them (e.g.  Red-Bird and Red-Car).

3)  When Adobe syncs LR/Classic to LR/Cloudy the hierarchical Keywords selected to sync will map to a flat keyword structure (due to rule 2).   In addition, Parent keywords in LR/Classic can also sync into the flat LR/Cloudy structure where using “Sync Containing Keywords” options uses the same logic that is used today with export.  Of course those sunced parent keywords would no longer be parents in LR/.Cloudy but would also be in the flat structure.

4)  If an image in LR Classic loses a keyword or these tick's get changed, the changes on effected images can be placed in the Smart Preview (or XMP data) and can sync to LR Cloud.  This may include adding or removing KW’s in LR Cloud or attaching/detaching keywords from images in LR Cloud

5)  If a user defined KW is added to an image in LR Cloud it could map to either no KW in LR Classic or at most one "ticked" KW in LR Classic.  In the former case, LR Classic would create the new KW at the root level of the Hierarchy with "Sync this KW with LR Cloud" ticked.  In the later case there could be only 1 ticked LR Classic Keyword (or synonym) with that name that would be affected.

I worked for Adobe for several years and have a very high regard for the quality of the engineers there to solve this problem if management would just ask them to do it.

THIS CAN BE DONE if there is a will to do so at Adobe and the more people who "vote" for having KW's sync between the ecosystems, the more it will push Adobe to re-consider this.   

Here is a plug-in for Lightroom Classic that I find invaluable. It syncs smart collections to mirrored normal collections. Using this i make smart collections with important keywords (sometimes limiting to say 3 stars) then I sync those collections to mobile. It’s a bit of setup and of course wouldn’t be feasible for too many keywords but works well for me. For example I made a folder called “3 star vacation”. This is one way to benefit from your LR Classic’s keywords in mobile.

http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-good...

Rikk Thank you for replying.
I voted a while ago....
Actually I just don't understand how you can say the 2 products are for different audiences.
If so, why do you propose and put forward a subscription with both ?
The only reason why your cloud subsciption with mobile and desktop lightrooms is interesting (to me?) is exactly because we have a workflow, starting mobile (on the IPAD Pro for me) while on the move for long periods (weeks) downloading images, starting to edit, keywords, ... and continuing back home on the desktop (and the CC desktop version doesn't have what is needed such as print...)...
And later going back and forth between mobile and desktop is a huge productivity gain (keywords, color tags, editing on the ipad or iphone while commuting for instance...)... otherwise what's the point os syncing...
I can't understand how this is not obvious to your Lightroom product management team...
Not being able to fully use my expensive subsciption (missing keyword, persons....) is making me doubt I will continue it and look forward for your competition to propose it.

All threads are read. 

Please see the official response at the top of the thread. If anything were to change that is where any update would appear. That official response also contains the link to the feature request (Add Keyword Hierarchy to Lightroom Ecosystem). This would be an antecedent to this feature request. 

Please continue to vote using the [Vote] button at the top of this (and the other ) page so that relative customer feedback continues to feed to our internal systems informing product management.

Thank you. The quote is from one of two answers to this thread, marked as official answers. The numbering is mine, though.

Thanks for making a compelling argument. It’s difficult to come up with another way to ask for these features without coming across as just complaining. You articulated this great. Hopefully someone is listening!. Where did you see Adobe reply that you quoted?

Very disappointing. Adobe please - Official reply states:
(1) A hierarchical schema is not compatible for various workflow reasons with a flat schema - ergo there is no syncing of keywords between the two.  
(2) The two products are designed for different audiences and workflows.

I know that it is tiresome to get the "I'm a software engineer myself, how hard can it be" over and over again, but maybe it would make you think twice? So, flattening the hierarchy when syncing, or only syncing a specific level, would be a somewhat acceptable limitation, near or long term. Not wanting to do it is just a decision. Then say it like it is.

Worst problem is the second part of the answer, about the product being for different audiences and workflows. Wake up and listen to your users - Lightroom CC/Mobile has been adopted as a long awaited valuable addition to the professional workflow of your LIghtroom Classic users, making it possible to work when not on the main system, and to delegate tasks like rating and adjustments. For many, what you have already now solves year-long problems of not being able to share catalogues or use network drives. Now it even works when syncing only the previews rather than the full images! It is genious - Adobe, you struck gold here for the workflow of professionals, and CaptureOne or anything else does not have anything like this yet. This is your value-prop, and you are alone on the market. Unless your only plan with Lightroom is to be freeware for instagram posting, please stop claiming that one Lightroom has nothing to do with the other Lightroom, and make your program managers understand that your users do not share the view of them being different workflows. You are throwing away your advantage.

I wonder if this will be read.

  

Would be great to have this feature in the near future. It cannot be a solution to do the sync of the keywords manually.