We need sticky filters for folders and collections back!

Report · Jun 14, 2010

i opened this new discussion because the old one was marked as answered. its not answered at all!

we need sticky filters back. its absolutely frustrating having to change the filters back over and over again.

there are collections where i want flagged photos to appear most of the time.

there are collections where i want flagged and starred photos to appear most of the time.

i just want lightroom to save these settings per collection and i dont want to have to make multiple smart-collections just to have these various filters saved.

im not asking for anything impossible. it was already there in lightroom 1&2.

adobe, please fix this regression fast! let us choose!

thank you.

Report · Jun 19, 2010

Butch, you are reading too much into my preference the LR3 behaviour - I am not actually arguing against the option providing it isn't the default. For me the ideal would be stickiness within the current session, and then Cmd L or Ctrl L would restore that specific folder's filtering for the current session.

The PV isn't really irrelevant. After all, part of LR's success is that it deviates from the customisability of other Adobe apps in favour of a much more task-oriented workflow where workspaces and palettes are fixed, and important settings aren't buried in preferences (at least that was the Year Zero theory).

John

Report · Jun 19, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
The PV isn't really irrelevant. After all, part of LR's success is that it deviates from the customisability of other Adobe apps in favour of a much more task-oriented workflow where workspaces and palettes are fixed, and important settings aren't buried in preferences (at least that was the Year Zero theory).
John

That portion of your comment is both true and false ..... yes, the the workspace and pallets are fixed ... however ... the individual user can choose to collapse any, all or some of the tool items at their discretion ... so even though the workspace is fixed ... there are still allowances for having a customized workspace .....

Don't get me wrong John, I know you and Ian have our best interests at heart ... you don't have to venture far here and elsewhere to know you are good guys trying to be helpful ... and I do appreciate your input .... but I really did prefer the filter behavior as it existed prior to LR3 ... even though it was wrong ....

Report · Jun 19, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
After all, part of LR's success is that it deviates from the customisability of other Adobe apps in favour of a much more task-oriented workflow where workspaces and palettes are fixed, and important settings aren't buried in preferences (at least that was the Year Zero theory).

LR's success was nothing to do with the lack of customisation, but in that it provided a new much needed type of tool that filled a major gap in Adobe's product line. i.e. a way of processing and dealing with a lot of images en masse very quickly. PS is great for individual shots but grading 500 wedding or sports shots in PS is very tedious compared to doing the same in any of the programmes like LR that use parametric rather than pixel based editing.

And if LR had been more customisable, with regard to current UI layout, it would be a much, much more efficient tool. I'm constantly having to go back and for between say library and Develop modules, when there is no real reason, except for the fact that certain panels are fixed and shortcuts that have no duplicates are disabled in some modules. I use two monitors and having the library panels on the second monitor in grid view when in develop would be such a time saver, compared to the semi-library functionality that is currently there, which means hopping back to library unnecessarily. Now some people would say, you should separate the tasks, but sometimes there is no separation, as say after developing an image you may then add a keyword to reflect that look. Plus creative people like to work creatively which is often a non linear process and being forced down a regimented way of working designed by software engineers, may not suit them or be that efficient. It constantly bugs me, particularly as the task based order isn't even in the right order. Camera Profile should be above, Colour Balance, not left to linger at bottom ignored by many. Even within the current modules, the ability to place panels where you want can improve the workspace.

Actually Br can do mass processing of images just like LR, but as ACR is hidden away as opposed to the explicit and more obvious and much better designed Develop module in LR, most people have no idea of Br's functionality and power and that's just amongst the ones who even realise Br exists in first place. Though IIRC Br 1.0 didn't come out that much earlier than LR 1 beta and it then took a few point updates to become usable.

Report · Jun 20, 2010

I did say "part", Jez, and not "all". Sure, we can all pick panels which might be in different places, but observing a lot of "creative people [who] like to work creatively which is often a non linear process and [dislike] being forced down a regimented way of working designed by software engineers", I'd say that when they're processing 500 images, it may be a good thing to have an app that gives them a bit of direction.

John

Report · Jun 20, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
... I'd say that when they're processing 500 images, it may be a good thing to have an app that gives them a bit of direction.
John

Come on, John. Stop thinking of Lightroom users as children. I'm 70 years young and am quite capable of making good decisions on my own. "A bit of direction" should be limited to examples and documentation.

Report · Jun 20, 2010

Children is your word, Bob, and I was responding to Jez's comments on a segment of users - not all.

John

Report · Jul 01, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
I did say "part", Jez, and not "all". Sure, we can all pick panels which might be in different places, but observing a lot of "creative people [who] like to work creatively which is often a non linear process and [dislike] being forced down a regimented way of working designed by software engineers", I'd say that when they're processing 500 images, it may be a good thing to have an app that gives them a bit of direction.

But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel. Besides most creatives learn the rules, so they know how to break them. And one person's idea of optimum workflow is often useless for someone else who has different needs. For example, to auto-increment or not with renaming.

No matter how well intentioned the designers, any UI will fail many of its users. However, customisable UIs and shortcuts will always reduce the number of people dissatisfied. And I think it is a serious design flaw for any software to eschew customisablity. Not to mention the reduction in pointless FRs like this thread. Let the end user decide what works for them.

Report · Jul 02, 2010

imajez wrote:
But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel.

Hmmm... Because you say so?

It's fine where it is, thanks.

Surely "creatives" (Good Lord...) are adaptable and flexible enough to handle Lr's design quirks, and intelligent enough to understand that it's impossible to please everyone across the board? I know that I'm always amazed by how quickly I can get used to things I'm not immediately convinced about, if I simply try, instead of wasting my time and energy complaining about what it's not.

I can think of much better ways to lay out the controls in a car too, but y'know...

Maybe I'm just not "creative" enough...

Report · Jul 02, 2010

There are some things that are pretty straightforward to adapt to. For instance, the switch in keyboard shortcut for the spot removal tool from "n" to "q." This is how I accidentally discovered survey mode, which I can't really figure out the purpose for. No matter...

Then there are things that get in the way, like the new filter behavior. There's really no way to "adapt," other than to resign myself to constantly having to remember to check or uncheck filters as I go through folders, or import new ones. From a usability perspective, it's positively awful.

Report · Jul 07, 2010

Keith_Reeder wrote:
imajez wrote:
But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel.
Hmmm... Because you say so?

No because LR was deliberately laid out with tools to be used in a top down order to guide one into a sensible workflow order - which is a good thing.

You white balance before you doing your basic edits, then tweak the tone curve and then you start fiddling with the other attributes. Now if you are going to use calibration, it needs to be the first thing applied as it alters colours and contrast and may even make many basic tweaks unnecesary.

And as Ian points out there is even some support for doing what I suggested within Adobe.

Surely "creatives" (Good Lord...) are adaptable and flexible enough to handle Lr's design quirks, and intelligent enough to understand that it's impossible to please everyone across the board? I know that I'm always amazed by how quickly I can get used to things I'm not immediately convinced about, if I simply try, instead of wasting my time and energy complaining about what it's not.
I can think of much better ways to lay out the controls in a car too, but y'know...
Maybe I'm just not "creative" enough...

Or maybe you simply willing to put up with an inferior way of working. You'd probably be quite happy with your cave and moaning about those fools wasting time trying to make a door, saying you get used to draughts, don't bother trying to improve things. Others however can see how things can be made better and campaign to get things changed. I've complained about many aspects of Adobe software over the years. The vast majority of which are now changed and improved as I and many other people asked for these changes. If you are happy with a less than perfect interface, why are you even bothering to come on here and complain about those who want to improve their workflow?

BTW I have zero problem adapting to new workflows if they are better. UIs that impede my workflow are simply annoying. LR has some brilliant aspects and some that are in my view just dumb [renaming individual files for example].

As for the "it's impossible to please everyone across the board" comment - the easiest way to maximise user pleasure [ooh er missus!] is to give the user choice, such as with this sticky filters or UI customisation in general. And if you want to annoy the maximun number of users tell them how they should work and also give them no option.

Report · Jul 10, 2010

imajez wrote:
But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel.

I would suggest to the LR dev team to implement a drag and drop panel reorder option to suit the user's preferences. Drag that Calibration panel to the top and drop it in spot 1. Drag the split toning out of the right panel to make it poof. Put it back by dragging it from a prefs dialog much like you can add or subtract items from a Mac toolbar...

[ ◉"]

Report · Jul 11, 2010

naestyoh wrote:
I would suggest to the LR dev team to implement a drag and drop panel reorder option to suit the user's preferences. Drag that Calibration panel to the top and drop it in spot 1. Drag the split toning out of the right panel to make it poof. Put it back by dragging it from a prefs dialog much like you can add or subtract items from a Mac toolbar...

Something I have suggested many times. But also with the ability to move panels to where ever in the app you wanted them and whichever monitor screen too.

Report · Jul 02, 2010

imajez wrote:
But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel.

Been discussed/requested many times and has internal support, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.

Report · Jul 06, 2010

Ian Lyons wrote:
imajez wrote:
But LR fails on that score anyway John. Camera calibration should be at top of Develop panel, above WB, not languishing gathering dust, at bottom of panel.
Been discussed/requested many times and has internal support, but it ain't going to happen any time soon.

what kind of attitude is that? shame on you!

Report · Jun 20, 2010

imajez wrote:
And if LR had been more customisable, with regard to current UI layout, it would be a much, much more efficient tool. I'm constantly having to go back and for between say library and Develop modules, when there is no real reason, except for the fact that certain panels are fixed and shortcuts that have no duplicates are disabled in some modules

Agreed, 100%.

Lightroom is much too modal.

There are too few configuration options.

Report · Jul 10, 2010

MadMan: Add a simple checkbox in the import dialog to the tune of "disable all filters for import location". Something like that. For some reason, I thought the loss of sticky filters in beta 1/2 was a bug that would be resolved in the release of V3. I rely on it heavily in my workflow where I turn on the flag/unflag filters and run through my several thousand shots from a sesson and reject photos to remove them from view. Later, I delete the rejected and rate the remaining.

[ ◉"]

Report · Jun 18, 2010

Yes, another vote for restoring this feature. I had thought there was a bug until reading this thread. A preference option would be a fine solution.

Report · Jun 18, 2010

I've registered my complaint over the loss of sticky filters elsewhere, but I will do so again here. I love all of the improvements that have come with LR3, but the loss of folder-based filter options has seriously messed up my workflow and has caused a lot of extra steps. In one case, I failed to send a client one of their images due to this. Please bring it back in 3.1.

Report · Jun 19, 2010

I look at this problem in a more simplistic manner:

The developers removed functionality from a product that is now in it's third major release. IMO, that should never happen. Improve the feature, sure. Make it an option with additional functionality, no problem. But never remove functionality from an application that's been in use for years. Development teams have no idea of the number of ways users may be reliant an a feature that has been around since day 1. Adobe did that, and it's just wrong. Especially since no one AFAIK has provided a logical explanation for the removal besides "users don't know what happened to their images" (my paraphrasing).

Report · Jun 19, 2010

I absolutely agree that sticky filters should not have been removed.

I used them extensively because of the following limitations on collections:

1. You cannot delete photos when in a collection - you can only remove them from a collection.

2. You cannot see stacks in a collection.

Why would I want to delete photos in a collection? Because sometimes after editing in Photoshop (often just for soft proofing!) and perhaps printing the image I decide that I have to tweak something back in Develop, so I delete the TIF files and go back and make my changes.

I never use collections for my work flow because of this - I tried to use them and the inability to delete a file completely stopped me cold. I only use collections for images that are complete. Instead I simply use the star rating, applied as I cull out the duds.

I want to be able to collapse stacks in a collection to remove the distraction of seeing the several stages of work on an image on which I am not working at the present.

Sticky filters should be brought back, but should be selectable by preference in order to keep everyone happy. Why not?

selby

Report · Jun 19, 2010

Selby Shanly wrote:
1. You cannot delete photos when in a collection - you can only remove them from a collection.

Ctrl/Cmd+Shift+Alt/Option+Delete will remove a file or files from a collection to trash

Ctrl/Cmd+Alt/Option+Delete will remove it from the catalog

Report · Jun 19, 2010

Ian:

Thanks for the tip - I learned something.

A couple of things:

1. Interesingly, the documented (Adobe LR3 help) shortcuts for Windows are: to delete completely (to Recycle Bin) is Ctrl+Alt+Shift+Backspace. To remove from catalog is Alt+Backspace. At least according to the Adobe LR3 Help. But Ctrl+Alt+Shift+Delete worked for me too and makes more sense.

2. Given that there is a shortcut, why oh why doesn't the pop-up from the delete option in the menus give you the option instead of telling you that you can't delete a file from a smart collection and to display them in a folder or catalog first? Shortcuts should be just that - shortcuts, not the only way to do something. Makes absolutely no sense - at least to me! I should not have to go through the shortcut list to see if there is a unique function - that's not a shortcut.

I'm still left with the stacking issue, and the fact that now I need to have a collection per folder - a totally unnecessary complication. I need to be able to go back a few days and resume where I left off - at the moment after switching folders I have to try to get the filter going ASAP to avoid watching LR grind away displaying all the thumbnails.

Like many, I don't often have the time to completely process a days worth of images before the next batch. I make sure I initially cull them using a star system and add keywords. But then I often run out of time and need to return later to continue.

There seem to be many people on each side of this issue - so, Adobe, please bring it back as a preference. I have not seen any technical reason for removing it or an effective replacement.

Selby

Report · Jun 19, 2010

For what it's worth... just want to cast one more vote to have the option to use the old "Sticky Filtering". It was a usefull part of my workflow as well.

It seems that making it a preference that could be turned off and on would please people on both sides of the issue.

Report · Jun 20, 2010

another vote to get them back or have the option too. This is a real real real bummer for me.

Report · Jun 29, 2010

The gist of this thread seems to be the new behaviour was instigated because with previous versions with sticky filters you'd get

"users don't know what happened to their images".

But exactly the same thing happens with the new settings! I just looked at a collection and didn't find the photos I was expecting there. After much fumbling around I discover it's because Lightroom has remembered my filter from the previous folder I was looking at, and wasn't showing images with less than 3 stars. Adobe's own reason for the change is self-evidently invalid.

Now Lightroom is remembering filters between different, often completely unrelated folders and collections, but often forgetting what you had set on the SAME folder last time you looked at it!

----

I think an option has to be implemented. Although I actually like the new behaviour overall and would probably keep it.