We need sticky filters for folders and collections back!

[HolgerMC]

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.

[john beardsworth]

Or of using it for what it's designed for...

As a curiosity, Lee Jay, have you got many filter panel presets? I suspect that the more you use the panel the way I do, the more presets one has.

John

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

johnbeardy wrote:

Or of using it for what it's designed for...

As a curiosity, Lee Jay, have you got many filter panel presets? I suspect that the more you use the panel the way I do, the more presets one has.

John

Nope.  Not that helpful as I still have to remember what presets apply to what folders.  If I could remember that, I wouldn't need sticky filtering as much, but it would still be helpful as it would be applied automatically rather than manually.

[MadManChan2000]

John, one of my concerns is that when I import new images, I always

have to remember to turn off filters. Otherwise, the filter I was

using previously may prevent the new images from showing up.

Do you have a suggestion for avoiding this?

Eric

[Selby Shanly]

Hi Eric.  Making the behavior optional should keep everyone happy.  Those who liked them being sticky (and yes, sometimes I forgot too) and those who didn't. 

Perhaps there are some other options that would be useful, such as reset on import and making them sticky just within a single LR session.

Please make everything optional in order to suit everyone's preferences and not affect (previously) established workflows.

Thanks,

Selby

[john beardsworth]

Eric, I tend to switch on the lock for periods when it is needed, so do not hit that problem. I don't see filtering as a useful default state, any more than it is in Mail or Finder, and certainly not when I go back to a folder x months later and don't see the images I expected.

John

[imajez]

Whilst we are on the subject of filtering, why not make the the filter panel more like Bridge's excellent adaptive filter panel, which LR's panel seems like a poor imitation of? The filter presets in LR seem like a way of coping with a rather poor fundamental design. Filtering files seems so easy in Br and sadly so clunky in LR.

[Ian Lyons]

imajez wrote:

Whilst we are on the subject of filtering, why not make the the filter panel more like Bridge's excellent adaptive filter panel, which LR's panel seems like a poor imitation of? The filter presets in LR seem like a way of coping with a rather poor fundamental design. Filtering files seems so easy in Br and sadly so clunky in LR.

The planned feature set for Lr3 library did not envisage significant changes to the organisational, search and filter systems, at least not at a user level. Nevertheless, what you suggest has been requested by some of us on many occasions. In fact, it has been speced/mocked up by some of us to the point were it would go a very long way to addressing the fundamental shortcomings that are at the core of this and pretty much every other discussion about Lightroom's organisational searching and filtering capabilities since the very first day it was shown. That being said, this discussion has unfortunately focussed on the Metadata filter panel.

The metadata filter panel is not and never has been intended as a "long term" organisational tool. The fact that it was able to be used as one with Lr2 meant that many users did not fully investigate the power of smart and dumb collections or just found it a much quicker easier method of achieving their goals, even though it was inherently flawed*. Those who did take the time to better understand what could be done within collections panel often found the old behaviour in the metadata filter panel to be a workflow obstacle rather than a help. It's unfortunate that the change introduced in Lr3 doesn't suit everybody, but the solution being put forward in this and other threads  (user preference should be introduced so that folk can go with the old or new way) simply delays the inevitable. That is, at some point Adobe will get round to addressing the underlying organisational weaknesses, which will again leave those dependent on "sticky" filtering having to adapt.

I don't doubt that the change in behaviour has hurt many users, but as John and others have already stated. Much of what they need is already available, albeit clunky and not nearly as intuitive as it should be.

* localised sticky "filtering" being used a medium to long term organisational tool

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

I don't see why sticky filtering is "flawed" as an organizational tool while smart collections are not.  They are the same thing except that smart collections are not capable of being tied to a folder while filters are.

For me, collections are a flawed organizational tool, primarily because they are not visible from the myriad of other applications I use to access my images besides LR.  Having my primary organizational approach accessible from only one of a dozen tools isn't particularly useful and it is very confusing to see different methods of organizing the same data in different tools.

[Elenhil]

I doubt that either smart or dumb collections can replace my usual folder+filter organizational workflow. Let's give it a try:

I use folders to organize my shoots. I rarely have more than one per day, so an automatically generated year/month/day folder structure serves my needs just fine - the photos are already ordered my date on import, and the only manual thing I have to do is to change the name of the lowest folder from simply a date to something more recognizable (i.e., "02 - Red dress").

Now, where does filtering come in? I rate my photos with stars (most of you people do, I guess) to - precisely - filter out those that are less than OK. I.e., I set my filter to display photos with 3+ stars. Now whenever I selected a folder (a shoot) in LR2 I had the inferior photos filtered. Because LR2 used sticky filters for folders. Just as I wanted.

But you're telling me it's time to stop fiddling with filters and switch to collections. Please, enlighten me as to the particulars of achieving my simple aims described above with the help of collections! I'm feeling really open-minded and grateful. Please, do!

[Ian Lyons]

Elenhil wrote:

I doubt that either smart or dumb collections can replace my usual folder+filter organizational workflow. Let's give it a try:

At it's simplest level - create a smart collection that excludes the images with less than X stars or doesn't have label Y or whatever you want as the criteria.  This creates a global smart collection of all images that meet the criteria defined in the smart collection. To make the smart collection operate at local level select the appropriate folder then Cmd/Ctrl click the a smart collection that matches what you want to filter. Remember, using Cmd/Ctrl to select across folders and collections is an AND function.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Ian Lyons wrote:

At it's simplest level - create a smart collection that excludes the images with less than X stars or doesn't have label Y or whatever you want as the criteria.  This creates a global smart collection of all images that meet the criteria defined in the smart collection. To make the smart collection operate at local level select the appropriate folder then Cmd/Ctrl click the a smart collection that matches what you want to filter. Remember, using Cmd/Ctrl to select across folders and collections is an AND function.

How does that help to remember which filter applies to which folder?

[Ian Lyons]

Lee Jay,

I was answering the question directly above mine.

My earlier post now includes a quote from the post I was answering.

[john beardsworth]

One could also add a criterion "Folder / Contains / MyFolderName" to tie a smart collection to a folder (or series of folders).

Look up my Workflow Smart Collections for an example of a more elaborate filtering system.

John

[Ian Lyons]

One could also add a criterion "Folder / Contains / MyFolderName" to tie a smart collection to a folder (or series of folders).

Look up my Workflow Smart Collections for an example of a more elaborate filtering system.

Thanks, John. I had originally typed up this approach but then decided to remove it before posting as I wanted to keep the procedure as simple as possible.

[Butch_M]

Ian and John .... while I have the utmost respect and admiration for your contributions here and elsewhere ... on this particular issue ... I disagree ...

You both may see the LR3 version of folder filtering as an improvement .... I and others do not ... I don't really want to clutter or confuse my workspace with more collections when my previous workflow was simple, smooth and available .... Individual workflows are ... well .... individual ...

For example ... It makes me wonder why LR3 offers an improved processing version, better post crop vignettes, etc. Not only are these improvements available ... but users can still use and apply legacy versions of these features ... but sticky folder filters was wrong? ... and no ability to use them in the fashion I was accustomed to from here on?

Doesn't make sense to include the freedom of choice in so many areas ... and to implement "improvements" arbitrarily in others ...

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

johnbeardy wrote:

One could also add a criterion "Folder / Contains / MyFolderName" to tie a smart collection to a folder (or series of folders).

How would one make those smart collections hierarchical (each with different filters) like can be done with folders with sticky filtering, including having some collections that have both images and sub collections, some that have only sub collections and some that have only images?

[Scott Masterton]

I also want to add my support for the this feature to be brought back, it has been bugging me stupid for days now as I thought it was something I was doing wrong, having exhausted that possibility I then started searching online and lo and behold I find this thread and that this feature has been removed. Thanks for the warning Adobe.

Maybe it was just a ploy to make you reinvest some time in familiarsing yourself with the options/preferences in LR.

Everyone works in there own way, I hate it when someone says 'but your workflow should be like this', well thanks but I'm old enough to make my own decisions

[john beardsworth]

By using a combination of smart and dumb collections. As shown in that workflow smart collection, one can also test for collection name.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

johnbeardy wrote:

By using a combination of smart and dumb collections. As shown in that workflow smart collection, one can also test for collection name.

So, I'd have to re-create my entire structure, using a combination of filters on names and filters on metadata, having that information only accessible inside LR and not anywhere else, having the risk of losing it (or all the work I've done on it since the last backup) if the catalog goes unrecoveably corrupt (which has happened about half a dozen times to me since LR 1), and all that work is in lieu of what was done automatically for me by default in previous versions.  And, the reason for this is that a few people can't figure out why their images are missing when coming back to a folder to which they had previously applied a filter.

I'd suggest work would be saved overall if those people would remember to turn off their filters or just figure out what's going on when they come back rather than make all that extra manual work replacing that which was done automatically for us in prior versions.

Or, better yet, make a preference so you can work how you work best and I can work how I work best.  Having previously organized data sets with tens of billions of data elements I think I can figure that one out for myself.  And the answer is, every data set is different and some lend themselves to one sort of organization while others lend themselves to others.  Maybe collections work for the way you shoot and work.  They don't for me.  Filters work for the way I shoot and work.  Maybe they don't for you.  But don't insult me by claiming that's because I don't know what I'm doing and I won't insult you for not remembering to shut off your filters when you're done with them, okay?

[john beardsworth]

I think that's uncalled for.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

johnbeardy wrote:

I think that's uncalled for.

What is?  I think this is:

"Use Filters when you don’t know what you’re doing, use Smart Collections  when you do."

[john beardsworth]

Oh, something written elsewhere, 2 years ago, is somehow directed at you?

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

John, for someone who, only 10 days ago, said:

Sean and Victoria - we've discussed this enough elsewhere. Don't you think we should stand aside here, and not try to influence this discussion? Let's see what users in general think.

you do seem quite heavily involved in trying to convert users to your way of thinking....

At the end of the day, there apppears be agreement on one thing - different people have different workflows that they've been using to good effect for a long time now, and 3-4 years later is a bit late in the game to take away significant functionality, regardless of the arguments of which is 'best.'   You're trying to push a river upstream.  Hopefully Adobe will offer choice on this one.

[john beardsworth]

Yes, and I said that hoping others would take the same view with new threads.

[HolgerMC]

this discussion is silly. this shouldnt even be a discussion. just fix it or dont!

im not going to hope for anything. im just NOT going to use this parochial LR3.

goodbye test version. - hello good old LR2!

this is really too bad. i waited half a year for LR3 just to learn its a regression.

if i had known, i wouldnt have yearned for it.

now i know, LR2 is my best companion.

DONT BUY Lightroom 3 !!!