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 · Jul 01, 2010

I agree about making it optional to turn the sticky filters OFF if one wanted to.

Look; An upgrade/improvement should never create more hazzles for the users, obviously, people have adapted to a certain way of doing things in LR1 and LR2, when you remove a much used feature like this, things will get more tedious for many.

Make it an option in preferences (default on), then you will have an improvement for users that do not wish to have it on, and for the ones that is used to use it, it's business as usual.

Other than that, I really like LR3, solid stuff.

Regards

Z

Report · Jul 01, 2010

Looks like ADOBE are still looking at the problem then!

Report · Jul 01, 2010

Tri-state lock - not a preference option! - please!!!

-R

Report · Jul 07, 2010

Another point. Lightroom now applies the current filter even to the colleciton of newly importred photos after import, when it's quite unlikely they will even have bave been rated or flagged.

D'oh!

Report · Jul 11, 2010

I absolutly want the possibility to use sticky filters back.

Report · Jul 11, 2010

Well, I've just read through the entire message thread. I'm impressed by peoples ability to come up with 'reasons' both for and against the imposed removal of sticky filters.

But I agree the most with people who say "it's been a function for 2 major releases, don't delete it now". I use both sticky filters AND collections. Sticky filters are great for sorting, eliminating and general photo selection. I hardly ever forget to turn it off when I no longer want it. Hardly ever. Sometimes I do, and wonder "wasn't there more than this?" which is my clue to look at my fitlers. "Ah! Dummie!" and click them off. But the majority of the time, I like them on, because that's the way I'm working. Deleting a feature that in 2% of my work flow causes me a brief trouble hurts far more than helps.

Making it a settable (global if you have to, by directory if you can) value. Heck, while you are at it, put in a "global default", that selects the default for any new directories, just so people (of either flavor) can set it once the way they like it and forget it.

People are using it for different things. Do I miss it? Yes. Am I hobbled by it gone? Not really, it has requried changes in my work flow, and it takes me longer to filter now, but I'm still using the software.

I find the lack of sticky import values almost or more of an irratant right now. :}

Ciao!

Jason

Report · Jul 14, 2010

i think it's easy and everything is said:

- Adobe should add an option to switch sticky-filters on/off

With LR2 i sometimes thought, that those sticky-filters are not that helpfull. Sometimes i wondered, why i can't see a specific picture or why i only had so few pictures of that day... when i realized, that such sticky-filter was active for that folder.

So i can understand those people who say, that LR3 has "fixed" that.

But, now that i've worked with some real-live projects with LR3 i have to say: I really miss them! You only realize what small things you have used when they are suddenly gone

It's not an option to build up Collections for each Shot (=Folder) i think. Why do double work?

- no stacking in collections

- "no" final deleting from collections (i've read, that cmd+shift+alt+delete should work - havn't see that working for me - maybe because backspace is not delete?)

- flagging in a collection is independend from flagging in folders. Some may like that. Currently i don't! If i flag pictures as rejected, i cannot filter for them in the library because the flag doesn't appear there. Same for picks. But in my workflow, i often need to search the library for a few keywords and getting only the picks... not possible if i would work in collections all the time (and i don't want to set the pick-flag two times at two different locations)

So only way is working with the stars only because they are global... but then i would have to completely rethink my workflow and drop the flags - but i like them...

anyway - sticky filters are very nice in my opinion but i can understand, that not everybody likes them. So: Adobe, please give us an Option for that.

Thank you

Report · Jul 14, 2010

+1 more vote to have sticky filters back, or better yet the option to either activate them or not. Can I vote more than once?! I think it's literally insane that this has been removed in LR3!!

I'm a professional wedding photographer, and am super irritated that now every time I start up LR3 (which I otherwise love), I have to turn my filters back on. LR2 made perfect sense to me that when I closed it down & started it up again later it would bring me EXACTLY to the same place I was when I left - same module, same filters, same image. That way I could continue exactly where I left off! (Wow, how basic common sense is that?!?) This is critical to my work flow.

More disturbing, I'm absolutely stumped why they would completely remove such a useful, helpful, common sense attribute... if it doesn't fit with other people's work flow, fine - make it toggle-able with a checkbox in preferences. Something like "Preserve filter settings on exit." This is analogous to something like: each and every time you open a spreadsheet you have to re-hide the columns you had hidden before... which of course, is just plain nuts.

Report · Jul 14, 2010

How about a reply from the LR team?

This is clearly a substantial issue to many users.

Report · Jul 14, 2010

Why not read further up the thread?

Report · Jul 14, 2010

I read as they are sent to me.

Since you have taken the trouble perhaps you could point a recent reply.

I got that they are looking at it!

Report · Jul 14, 2010

Hey everyone, I just discovered something that, while not solving all the issues in this thread, has solved my problem of filters resetting each time I leave & restart LR3, per my earlier post.

If you turn on the filter bar (View >> Show Filter Bar... or shortcut key "\"), on the upper right corner of that bar there is a padlock. If you choose the filters you want (for example, I only want to look at the Flagged pictures in my collection), then lock the padlock (click on it so it closes), it will preserve that filter setting upon exit & restart. It seems as though it will still be active (i.e., preserve settings if locked) even if you turn the filter bar back off.

Sorry if someone already pointed this out, I didn't have time to read all the pages.

Report · Jul 14, 2010

That's only a half-solution, because it's global. If you have filters turned on when you import a new folder, none of the images show up, You then have to turn your filters off. And it applies the same filter settings to all of your folders, rather than remembering the settings, as was the old behavior.

I really thought this had to be a bug, when I first saw it. I couldn't believe anybody would make the change on purpose.

Report · Jul 15, 2010

I'll add another vote for sticky filters, as I used it a lot before upgrading. My workflow is to go through imports and use flags to identify rejects, possibles and definite picks. I gradually weed down until I get my selection to edit, set as flagged. I then edit, set a color filter for final edits and have all of my folders set to show the final edits only. That way I can quickly go back to a folder and find the edits from that shoot. I suppose I should the rejects, but I like to keep the "OK, but not in the original final selection" available, but hidden.

I think anyone who's promoting a different workflow here that doesn't benefit from sticky folders is sort of missing the point. In this case it happens to be sticky filters that have been taken away in the upgrade. Who's to say that a feature that you rely on won't disappear in the next release? It's the principle of losing an option that is the issue here.

I don't have a problem with it being an option, and even having that set to default off, but not being able to use a feature that I relied on reduces my trust in the overall product. I'll be reluctant to upgrade next time round in case I lose something else I find useful.

Report · Jul 16, 2010

seanb99 wrote:

I think anyone who's promoting a different workflow here that doesn't benefit from sticky folders is sort of missing the point. In this case it happens to be sticky filters that have been taken away in the upgrade. Who's to say that a feature that you rely on won't disappear in the next release? It's the principle of losing an option that is the issue here.
I don't have a problem with it being an option, and even having that set to default off, but not being able to use a feature that I relied on reduces my trust in the overall product. I'll be reluctant to upgrade next time round in case I lose something else I find useful.

This is a such an important point. Something every software PM should bear in mind.

Report · Jul 16, 2010

imajez wrote:
seanb99 wrote:

I think anyone who's promoting a different workflow here that doesn't benefit from sticky folders is sort of missing the point. In this case it happens to be sticky filters that have been taken away in the upgrade. Who's to say that a feature that you rely on won't disappear in the next release? It's the principle of losing an option that is the issue here.
I don't have a problem with it being an option, and even having that set to default off, but not being able to use a feature that I relied on reduces my trust in the overall product. I'll be reluctant to upgrade next time round in case I lose something else I find useful.
This is a such an important point. Something every software PM should bear in mind.

I couldn't agree more with you both.

Report · Jul 17, 2010

seanb99 wrote:

I think anyone who's promoting a different workflow here that doesn't benefit from sticky folders is sort of missing the point. In this case it happens to be sticky filters that have been taken away in the upgrade. Who's to say that a feature that you rely on won't disappear in the next release? It's the principle of losing an option that is the issue here.

Ah, the great "first they came for the..." argument?

Report · Jul 17, 2010

John, although the "At first they came for the Jews.." argument is about something a vastly more serious, it is the same basic principle now you mention it.

John Nack has written in his blog on several occasions about even though he'd like to remove some of the lesser used tools in PS, he is all too aware that a small percentage of people will probably depend on those features. And although most people do not use the tools, that still means there may be tens of thousands who do.

Report · Jul 17, 2010

And as a result many say Photoshop is bloated.

Report · Jul 17, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
And as a result many say Photoshop is bloated.

The people who moan about software bloat are numpties, not talking about you BTW John. As what they mean is "get rid of the bits I don't use and keep the bits I do". They selfishly ignore the fact that everyone uses different features or are so self involved it never dawns on them that other people may use the software in a completely different and equally legitimate way to them. I see their posts and they read as 'Me, me, me. Me, me, me'. There are big chunks of PS I never use, but I'd never be so arrogant to tell Adobe to remove them, just because I have no need for them.

I use PS all the time, yet I do not regard it bloated at all as I simply do not notice the features I do not use - not that PS couldn't do with a bit of tidying up and rationalising. Like the 72 or so different types of sliders in the UI, but that's a separate consideration.

Report · Jul 17, 2010

Oddly enough, code bloat has nothing to do with "features" you personally are not using. Code bloat is a programming techincal term which refers to (commonly) the overuse of inheritance and poor programming practices. A simple example of the latter is the flight simulator in Word. How many people think that MS Word is an appropriate place to find a flight simulator? (Leaving asside the question of MS Word being appropriate for anything.)

The most common problem in today's applications for code bloat is poor programing practices. We have a function in some library that contains many things, but there is one tiny piece we want to use. Rather than restructure the code to have it inherit and isolate that piece so we dont' get all the extra code we don't need, we just include the whole thing.

That is code bloat.

Keeping/Adding features people want/it had before is not.

Let's at least try to be accurate here, if you're going to pick a rant that doesn't concern the actual question involved, please.

Report · Jul 18, 2010

And when they want them for questionable reasons?And when restoring their favourite feature isn't the best solution? So can we have metadata browser back please? It uses less screen real estate than the iTunes filter columns. Aw, why can't I have it as an option?

John

Report · Jul 18, 2010

Logical response deleted, as there is really no point in arguing retoric with logic. It would be nice to be able to delete a posting.

Report · Jul 19, 2010

johnbeardy wrote:
And when they want them for questionable reasons?

And who decides what is "questionable?

And when restoring their favourite feature isn't the best solution?

And who decides what is the "best solution"?

Are you the arbiter of what is appropriate and what is not? I sincerely hope not.

You may now respond with a typical sarcastic remark.

Report · Jul 19, 2010

On 7/19/2010 11:49 AM, Bob_Peters had this to say: