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.

[Calvin_Hey]

"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 !!!"

That's a pretty shortsighted response. While this issue is pretty bad in terms of usability, it's hardly a dealbreaker. The new rendering engine is excellent. They did a much better job than the last time they tried to improve it. It seems to have fewer bugs than LR 2.0 did. The new lens corrections are a great start, and just in time for me! I bought a 24-105L a month or so ago, and at 24mm, it really needs help with distortion. While I'd have liked more new headline features (I'd love something like Capture One's new "in focus" indicator), it's a solid upgrade. For $99, it's a great deal.

[Elenhil]

Ian Lyons wrote:

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.

Thank you for trying, but that is a rather poor and complex substitute for what had previously been a simple and brilliant one-click solution, and here's why:

To fully replace the filter with smart collections I would, first, have to create 15 of them (one for every possible setting of the star filter). That is alone quite a bad idea usability-wise. Now, I happen to employ colour labels besides star ratings, too, and I had previously daily enjoyed the possibility of filtering my photos by both rating AND label. That would have required creating mere 5 collections more - had it been possible for several collections to be combined as AND conditions! But given that isn't, and selecting several collections gives an OR condition, replacing filtering by 5 ratings and 5 labels with smart collections would require me to create 75 of them - one for every possible position of a tiny strip of UI that the filter panel is! That is ridiculous, sir.

[john beardsworth]

It's only ridiculous because you are confusing temporary filtering, which everyone uses, with long term organisation. I don't think there's much disagreement about the value of sticky filters within a work session or for the time it takes to process a job. It's the persistence that was the problem and which has been fixed.

[Elenhil]

johnbeardy wrote:

It's only ridiculous because you are confusing temporary filtering, which everyone uses, with long term organisation. I don't think there's much disagreement about the value of sticky filters within a work session or for the time it takes to process a job. It's the persistence that was the problem and which has been fixed.

No, it is ridiculous because 75 smart collections won't even fit my screen height! To suggest that this travesty of workflow and usability is the future for the sake of which we must be happy to do away with the filter is not very brilliant, too.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

johnbeardy wrote:

It's only ridiculous because you are confusing temporary filtering, which everyone uses, with long term organisation. I don't think there's much disagreement about the value of sticky filters within a work session or for the time it takes to process a job. It's the persistence that was the problem and which has been fixed.

Just yesterday I was processing images from a job shot 53 weeks ago at the client's request.  Since then I've shot approximately 100 other events.  It took me a good while to figure out what was going on with the ratings and labels (and VCs - the one job I've used them on!) in the hierarchy that was that single job given all the water under the bridge since then.  With LR 2 behavior, I wouldn't even have had to think about it - it would have still been just like I left it the last time I worked on it.  Since this situation is not remotely uncommon for me, that "temporary filtering" needs to last as long as possible, preferably forever since that's the amount of time that could possibly pass between when I finish with it one time and when I come back to work on it again.

[john beardsworth]

And I can go back to a job two years ago, and at a glance see exactly which images were used in the book, which went online, find the b&w copies, see which VCs were used for the ProShow DVD etc - all because they're in neatly-labelled collections. It takes seconds to create them, and they can come from multiple folders if that's how the job was shot.

[Calvin_Hey]

"It's only ridiculous because you are confusing temporary filtering, which everyone uses, with long term organisation. I don't think there's much disagreement about the value of sticky filters within a work session or for the time it takes to process a job. It's the persistence that was the problem and which has been fixed."

No, persistence has been broken, to the point of being unusable. I've wound up turning on the lock, but that means turning off filters when loading new folders or going to work on folders that haven't yet had selections assigned to them.

The new behavior is a usability nightmare, and some of the suggestions people are making (use collections!) are absurd. Is it too much to ask that LR remember the settings as we left them? This is bug-like behavior, pure and simple.

[Ian Lyons]

Elenhil wrote:

Thank you for trying, but that is a rather poor and complex substitute for what had previously been a simple and brilliant one-click solution, and here's why:

Now, I happen to employ colour labels besides star ratings, too, and I had previously daily enjoyed the possibility of filtering my photos by both rating AND label. That would have required creating mere 5 collections more - had it been possible for several collections to be combined as AND conditions! But given that isn't

Multiple rules in a smart collection can be configured for either AND (all) or OR (any) or NOT (none)

If you hold down the Alt/Option button the + sign to right of rule allows you create even more complex rule sets.

Create the smart collection once and store multiple SCs in a single collection set or sets. When you need to filter images click on the appropriate SC and Ctrl/Cmd on the folder you want to filter.

Smart collections can solve many of your problems now. Any fix Adobe put in place won't happen until next dot release, which is in all likelihood 3 months or more away (assumes normal cycle for CR and Lr camera updates). It's your choice whether to use them or ignore.

[Selby Shanly]

Perhaps the point that is being missed here, is that a sticky filter on a folder represents the current "state" of that folder in the workflow.

The people (and it appears there are many) who used it that way do not appear at the moment to have any other way in LR3 of remembering this.  Using this workflow, one can gradually make the filter more and more restrictive as work progresses.  This approach is logical since folders often represent either a specific days shooting or a specific job.

If there is a way to make the application of a smart collection to a folder "sticky", please tell me.

So it's not just "when you need to filter images" - for each folder, once work has started, not having a filter means going back to the beginning.  Those of us who work this way want to go back to the current state of the workflow for that folder - the filter.

Yes, it's not the way a lot of people work, but it IS the way a lot of other people work.

Let's call it a tie, and bring it back as a preference.

Selby

[john beardsworth]

Selby Shanly wrote:

Perhaps the point that is being missed here, is that a sticky filter on a folder represents the current "state" of that folder in the workflow.

And I agree that's a very good observation. But is the proper solution to continue to beef up the filter behaviour for that organisational need, or request the ability to add coloured labels or text notes to folders and collections?

John

[Selby Shanly]

John:

The issue here is that the filter behaviour was not beefed up - it was removed!  This was removal of functionality for no obvious technical reason - not an enhancement.

I realize that you disliked sticky filters.  But there are many (obviously) who did like them.

I'm not promoting imposing sticky filters on you again - just bring them back as optional and everyone will be happy.  This cannot possibly affect your workflow.

Future enhancements would be nice but as we all know, they take quite a while.  So put back what we had with the incremental improvement of making it optional so that those that really hated it can ignore it.

Finally, even though this was in the beta, I think a lot of people missed it (I certainly did).  I suspect that many like me were focused on the image quality improvements.  I did not use the betas to actually organize my work - just process images imported from LR2 and export back to LR2 as a TIF due to Adobe's dire warnings not to trust the betas for everyday work.  So I just missed this one.

Arguing back and forth really does no good - there is a split of opinion here.  If the people who dislike sticky filters can agree that as long as it is optional (go ahead, make the default unsticky, I can set a preference once) it doesn't hurt them, then we can all be happy.

Selby

[Ian Lyons]

You guys do know that Lr3 does remember, even after a shutdown, the last filter setting associated with a folder/collection?  As Melissa pointed out previously, it was the sticky behaviour that was removed.

Select the folder then hit Cmd/Ctrl+L to enable the previous filter setting. It may not give everyone exactly what they want, but it's a lot better than a lot of you seem to think you've got.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Ian Lyons wrote:

Select the folder then hit Cmd/Ctrl+L to enable the previous filter setting. It may not give everyone exactly what they want, but it's a lot better than a lot of you seem to think you've got.

But that only brings back the filter last used ANYWHERE - not on that specific folder.  That's the problem.  If it remembered per-folder and was only disabled, there would be less complaints.

[Selby Shanly]

Ian:

As Victoria points out, this won't help those of us who used the sticky filters to remember the state of the workflow process for a particular folder.

I frankly do not understand the vehement opposition to bringing it back as an option.  That way both sides who each have valid reasons for working the way they do can continue to do so.

Everyone should be happy, shouldn't they?  I'm just perplexed...

Selby

[Ian Lyons]

Victoris,

I know what it it does and I know ti's limitations!

Selby Shanly wrote:

Everyone should be happy, shouldn't they?  I'm just perplexed...

Selby,

At no time have I opposed the a preference nor so far as I can recall has John. We have tried to offer help until the issue is properly resolved, but that seems to have only added to your annoyance. Therefore, as of now, I'm out of this topic.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Ian Lyons wrote:

Victoris,

I know what it it does and I know ti's limitations!

I know you do Ian - we've discussed it enough!!    But the wording sounded (to me, at least) like it was per-folder, which could just confuse the conversation further!

[Selby Shanly]

Ian:

With all due respect, statements such as "it's a lot better than a lot of you seem to think you've got" can be taken as disparaging or not understanding or disagreeing with the requirement.

Additionally, John did state "It's the persistence that was the problem and which has been fixed."  While this view has resulted in what obviously works best for John and many others (a good thing), it just doesn't fit how many of us work (a bad thing).  As long as it's optional, we're all happy ( a very good thing).

I trust that some poor soul at Adobe will wade through this thread and give us sticky filters again (optionally, of course).

Now I'm out too.  At least I learned how to delete files while in a collection!  So thanks for that.

Selby

[imajez]

johnbeardy wrote:

Selby Shanly wrote:

Perhaps the point that is being missed here, is that a sticky filter on a folder represents the current "state" of that folder in the workflow.

And I agree that's a very good observation. But is the proper solution to continue to beef up the filter behaviour for that organisational need, or request the ability to add coloured labels or text notes to folders and collections?

Tools often get used in ways not imagined by their creators. This is not a bad thing necessarily, but simply a broadening of the tools abilities.

Now it seems a lot of people have found ways to use sticky filters, that was not originally intended. And in ways that suit them and it appears that some are not easily replaced by methods you or Ian suggest. The reason being is that their workflow is quite different, whether this be as a result of [mis-]using tools that existed in a non-standard way or different mindsets. Either way, this may be as equally as valid a way of working.

For long term organisation, collections seem to be the obvious way to do things if you want er...collections. But for some people, their folders are in themselves, their collections. So why double up the collection organisation and how do you reconcile say a date style heirachical collection with named collections? In fact the more collections you have, the less wieldy the concept is as then you have to spend time and effort on a second lot of organising.

For some tasks, say where I select images from multiple folders, I make collections [smart or dumb]. But for other tasks I can see that a sticky filter specific to that folder is the simpler and better collection method. I do a job, I select the picks and make just them visible by filtering and make it sticky, so whenever I go back to that folder, I just see the shots I need to see without having to wrestle with LR's clunky filter panel. Easier than making a collection, that is then separate again from the work itself.

[Elenhil]

Ian Lyons wrote:

Elenhil wrote:

Thank you for trying, but that is a rather poor and complex substitute for what had previously been a simple and brilliant one-click solution, and here's why:

Now, I happen to employ colour labels besides star ratings, too, and I had previously daily enjoyed the possibility of filtering my photos by both rating AND label. That would have required creating mere 5 collections more - had it been possible for several collections to be combined as AND conditions! But given that isn't

Multiple rules in a smart collection can be configured for either AND (all) or OR (any) or NOT (none)

Yep. Except that you'd need dozens of smart collections for all possible combinations of ratings (<,=,>=) and labels. It would have been 20 had different smart collections worked as AND when selected together (15 for ratings and 5 for labels). But you know, I say 20 is just as bad as 75.

[paulwasserman]

Once again, your 'Fix' is my broken application.  I'm glad you've got a workflow that works for you, but I've got a different workflow that works for me, and no matter how much you might argue the superiority of one over the other, neither one of them is right or wrong.

Collections work for you and that's great.  Collections don't work as well for me because I don't want to have to scroll through hundreds of collections on top of the hundreds of folders I already have.  Collections themselves have real limitations for me until they are fully implemented with the ability to delete and stack while in the collection.  I can easily nest folders and sub-folders any way I want, whereas Collection Sets are really cumbersome (broken since LR1 IMHO).

Even if collections get 'fixed' from my point of view, or some major organizational restructuring takes place, I still don't necessarily want to have to create a collection or other permanent item if I can use a temporary filter or preset to do what I want and turn it off when I'm done.  Since I don't always have time to finish what I'm doing in one LR session, let alone in the same week, I want those filters to stay set until I choose otherwise.

But again, that's me.  If that's not useful to you that's fine, but Adobe shouldn't be breaking what works for me to 'fix' you, or vice-versa.

Paul Wasserman

[Butch_M]

That's all well and good John, but I like to have different filters based upon client's needs .... if the client requests CMYK, RGB, needs 170 ppi vs 300 ppi ... the filters I use on individual shoots come in very handy ... my workflow should be able to be customized to my standards and not to any perceived standard that is popular to anyone else ....

For three years ... or more  if you consider the original beta of LR .... To have a behavior as important as folder  filtering changed arbitrarily without notice .... is a step backwards ... not forward .....

Just my humble opinion .....

[john beardsworth]

Then use collections, Butch - sets, smart and dumb. They can permit much more sophisticated filtering of your work than the filter panel, alternatives filterings can be placed side by side, you can name them 5x7" or CMYK output, you can easily mix smart and manually-compiled collections, and each collection remembers its print, sldieshow and web output settings. The filter panel is a tool that is suitable primarily for finding and filtering (like iTunes' columns), and over-relying on it for organisation is always going to be weaker than using tools like collections which are specifically designed for organisation.

I'd also counter by saying to have a problem fixed after 3 years is very pleasing. Remember the improvement was visible throughout betas 1 and 2.

John

[Butch_M]

johnbeardy wrote:

I'd also counter by saying to have a problem fixed after 3 years is very pleasing. Remember the improvement was visible throughout betas 1 and 2.

John

John ... I think if you recall .... there was quite a lengthy thread in the beta forum addressing the disappoint with this "fixed feature" as well ... in fact, the lack of the sticky filter was considered a bug in the beta by a few folks ... not an improvement in functionality ..... though it was implied ... were were complaining too late in the cycle for it to be changed in the final release ...

[john beardsworth]

I do recall, Butch, and I could toss it back at your point about "filtering changed arbitrarily without notice". With all changes, those who object will make the noise, but I suspect a lot more people will be quietly happy to see the images they expected in a folder. There may not be much middle ground on a folders+filters versus a folders+collections+filters debate, but I've little doubt Adobe will fine tune filter behaviour before too long.

[Butch_M]

johnbeardy wrote:

I do recall, Butch, and I could toss it back at your point about "filtering changed arbitrarily without notice". With all changes, those who object will make the noise, but I suspect a lot more people will be quietly happy to see the images they expected in a folder. There may not be much middle ground on a folders+filters versus a folders+collections+filters debate, but I've little doubt Adobe will fine tune filter behaviour before too long.

Again ... ACR 6.x and LR3 offer process version 2010 .... correct? Many users feel v2010 is much better than v2003 ... correct? Why did Adobe allow all users the option to choose which process version to use?  ... but .... not allow the choice of folder filtering behavior we had become accustomed too? ....

Certainly process version 2010 is far superior and more "correct" than v2003 in all ways  and a great "fix" for the RAW processing engine .... why not the decision to abandon v2003 in LR3 and be done with it?

I'll tell you why ... because Adobe has always been about the ability to customize almost every facet of the workflow in almost every app they have ever offered. Which is why it is so strange to see that there is opposition to there being a preference option for sticky folder filtering ....

Keep in mind ... most, if not all, who are requesting this functionality to be restored, are not asking to have the current functionality removed or to take something away at the expense of other users .... only the option to choose as they wish ....