P: I want to be able to exclude specific folders during synchronization

[UKRowley]

It is common in many programs that deal with batch management of folders to have a facility to exclude any folder from a bulk action. For example bulk copying between two PCs or backing certain folders in a group up. There appears to be no similar function in LRC when synchronizing subfolders of a specific folder. Some I'd like in Lightroom, some not. I'd like one please. Please note this is not a discussion on my workflow pattern.

[John R Ellis]

You're more likely to persuade Adobe to implement a feature request if you provide detailed explanations of why you want it, e.g. an explanation of your workflow.

[UKRowley]

I don't think I have to justify a request. It's not a favour I'm asking, it's an enhancement to a product I am paying for.

[John R Ellis]

You absolutely aren't required to justify your request. But here's what Adobe says:

-----------------------------------

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863... 

How will the feature help your workflow?
Describe why you want the feature - include the problem you're currently hitting and how this new feature would solve that problem. Before working on a feature, the product team will need to understand how your idea fits in and may even come up with a better way of solving your problem.

Enlist support!
If you feel strongly about a feature, and you know other people do too, get them to vote!

-----------------------------------

Your request will more likely get votes if people understand the motivation and how something similar might help them.

[UKRowley]

Thank you for your comment, but it's really very simple. I have some folders that I wish not to be catalogued within the entirety of a folder's contents. I do not wish to hold them separately, which is an alternative solution, for backup and security reasons. I don't think it needs any more explanation than that; you clearly grasped my suggestion immediately.

[John R Ellis]

I understood the feature you're requesting (you were very clear) but still don't understand the motivation. But my thoughts about this don't matter -- it's what Adobe and others who might vote for your idea think.

[richardplondon]

You can expand the subfolders within an Import source and achieve selectivity on that basis. To be clear: the tool that's primarily intended AFAICT, and the one with the far richer settings and behaviour, is Import - not Sync Folder.

In my opinion, feature by feature comparisons of LrC against file and folder management utilities, are not useful. LrC does not even claim to directly report the live contents of a file system anyway - nor doubly so, to provide an environment that is well suited for bulk file or folder operations. The main thrust and focus of this product, is completely elsewhere.

[UKRowley]

Thank you for the suggestion. I'm aware of import's functions and abilities but this is about files and folders already present. My photographic collection predates the introduction of photoshop itself in 1987 and I have used many different programs and apps since then. The Adobe tools are by far the most flexible and capable out there in the prosumer space and I was pleased to find them. The very fact that LRC does not update as the file system does (unlike Bridge, for example) means that this suggestion has value; you can exclude a folder and it stays excluded. I would contend that this is a very useful tool.

[richardplondon]

Yes: files already present in the desired folder locations can be imported in-place using the Add option. This offers you full selectivity on a file by file basis based on image previews, and also selectivity on the subfolders of the import source - meaning in the case of Add, just the source for some Catalog relevant operations. Besides reading the actual files in for preview generation, this can also include bulk keywording, the application of a chosen Develop preset / of a chosen metadata preset.

Besides of course Move or Copy or Copy as DNG when you do want that, with renaming perhaps.

Like you, I had an established folder structure before I ever used LrC. I worked out at that time what new auto-date-filing I wanted to happen with newly taken photos, guided by what LrC could directly deliver by itself, and put the Catalog in full charge of executing this. I had some slight reorganisation to complete for pre-existing photos till they conformed to this same scheme, but found that worthwhile to do. The benefit for me, is that I have since expended zero time or attention on file and folder operations - other than ensuring backup - for the files and folders that contribute to my LrC image library (and I started this in version 1). Not my concern any more: I've subcontracted the whole job out to LrC, it gives me a unified and predictable result back, so good riddance! The only residual intervention from me, as to folder management, has been choosing where my exports are to go.

[UKRowley]

I'm intrigued. I come here to request a change, and two people have suggested a procrustean approach; there's nothing wrong with the software but something wrong with me so I need to change. Cheerful response - I wouldn't waste my time thinking through the problem and then articulating it here if I was going to do something different, so perhaps we can leave that tack alone. I said in the very first posting that this was not to be a discussion on workflow and that is exactly what you are trying to make it. Can we get back to the matter in hand?

[Califdan2]

I think this thread has run its course.  As the OP obviously thinks this is a worthwhile feature (and some replies agree), then the OP should submit it to Adobe as a new feature request.  

It's also obvious that severl responders don't think Adobe will pay much attentuion to such a feature request for various reasons.  This is just an observation or prediction as they are not in Adobe's decision making loop.  Adobe will do what Adobe will do.  If such a feature request gets a lot of upvotes Adobe may pay more attention to it (or not).

At this point, I don't see that anything more can be gained by further debate or discussion on the topic in this thread.

[John R Ellis]

"and two people have suggested a procrustean approach; there's nothing wrong with the software but something wrong with me so I need to change."

I have not said anything about the merits of your feature request. Rather, I've encouraged you to provide more details about how it fits into your broader workflow, to make it more likely other users would vote on it and Adobe seriously consider it (as Adobe has stated in their "How to write a feature request").

Without such an understanding, other users and the Adobe product team are more likely to think the current features are adequate for their limited, probably mistaken conception of your workflow, and your feature request will end up in the bit bucket.

[UKRowley]

How do I approach Adobe, then?

[richardplondon]

Short answer AFAICT is that you approach Adobe in the first instance by posting an Idea, which you have already done. Chasing up Adobe to implement your proposed change: I don't know of any end-user channel for doing that.

My understanding is that general Discussion posts are not systematically reviewed by Adobe staff. But there is some formal Adobe consideration for Ideas, as I understand it - and in this context the number of Upvotes by other users may add some weight.

[Keith Reeder]

Yeah, you do - you need to justify Adobe throwing money at it.

[Keith Reeder]

"Adobe will do what Adobe will do"

And they're more likely to do this if there's a clear rationale for it - not just a (somewhat entitled) "because I want it..."

[Jao vdL]

Took me w hile to understand what you were asking for but I think I get it now. I would actually contend that what we need is a real file browser within Classic that is more like Bridge or like the new local browser in Lightroom Cloudy (why just in Cloudy? We really want this in Classic!) with an easy option to add images to the catalog if needed. I'd agree that the folder synchronization option is too crude and there is very little custumization.

[richardplondon]

IMO the observation that Import does give folder selectivity, and the desire to have folder selectivity under Sync Folder as well, are not in any kind of conflict. The Import dialog option is just a workaround not a full substitute - IF Sync Folder is the method through which the user wants to bring in extra images (something which nobody has criticised).

The Import dialog and the Sync Folder command have completely unrelated interfaces and capabilities at present. To equip Sync Folder with an entire new interface seems like a lot of work for the benefit of only those users with this particular use case. I've never seen this asked for before, so this is probably not a very widespread desire.

I would agree that some development of the means of browsing the file system - leaving the Folders panel aside, which derives only from the Catalog and designedly so - could improve everyone's experience not just those with this particular use case. I'm thinking of the precedent of how the identical Renaming Template options show both when importing, and when renaming already imported files.

If this more developed browser can indicate images already imported to this Catalog, also folders containing such, so much the better. And then it could be invoked from within the Folders panel for various purposes, and show up in the Import screen too, export destinations, print to file...

[richardplondon]

...just to clarify, I did state that the Import dialog and the Sync Folder have got different interfaces in themselves, but failed to mention that the latter can easily invoke the former.

So we then go to an Import ADD session, with the relevant source location already loaded up.

It's true that this lacks the ability to turn off "include photos in subfolders". Consequence: we declare what folders to include - not what folders to exclude. But we can still leave out the images of a given subfolder from inclusion.

If that top folder is highlighted then all of its direct and indirect contents are automatically included. regardless whether those subfolders are themselves highlighted or not. If that top containing folder is not highlighted though, then we can highlight just the subfolders we want to include.

But what about images directly inside the synced folder and not in any subfolder?  This is where it would be more convenient to have a "don't include subfolders" toggle control, to help us in selecting just what we actively do want to import. To be clear, this addition would help everyone not just those starting out from Sync Folder. 

Lacking such a checkbox, and if we want images from this synced folder as well as from only selected subfolders - one method would be to highlight just the subfolder(s) we want to exclude (so that we see only unwanted images). Uncheck All. Then click again on the parent folder so everything shows once more - but with all our unwanted images retaining their un-checked state. So an Import will then omit these.