P: Stacking in folders and collections should be global

[johnrellis]

Stacks should be handled uniformly, regardless of the source selected. As it stands, stacks are second-class citizens in Lightroom.

* Currently, photos in different folders can’t be stacked. This restriction forces users to be aware of which folder a photo resides in, which goes against the mainstream digital-asset-management philosophy of hiding folder locations. I don’t know of any use-case justifying this restriction.

* Stacking isn’t displayed when viewing collections and smart collections. This is especially annoying when viewing smart collections, since smart collections are the only way to do advanced searching. It would be better if stacks were viewable within collections just as they are within folders and with filtering – when more than one photo in a stack is part of a collection, then the stack could be collapsed or expanded, but only the photos in the collection will be shown. This is the way stacks work now with filtering, so extending this to collections would be consistent. Users who don’t want to see stacking in collections could simply invoke Expand All Stacks.

* And of course, you should be able to stack and unstack photos when viewing a collection.

[Antoine HLMN]

No, it is not a bug. It is a feature which gives you the flexibility of having photos stacked differently in different places. So in collection 1 which I set up for a slideshow presentation, a stack can contain images x y z a b c, while z a b are also in a stack in collection 2 which is for a book, while in the folders none of those stacked. Previously, flags behaved similarly, and the per-folder/collection stacking was introduced when Adobe made flags global.

I totally get and understand the need for having different stacks in different collections. But you can just "unstack" and them restack as much as you want, according to your new preferences. I don't see why the stacks inheritance is limited to ONE single folder level.

[Antoine HLMN]

No, it is not a bug. It is a feature which gives you the flexibility of having photos stacked differently in different places. So in collection 1 which I set up for a slideshow presentation, a stack can contain images x y z a b c, while z a b are also in a stack in collection 2 which is for a book, while in the folders none of those stacked. Previously, flags behaved similarly, and the per-folder/collection stacking was introduced when Adobe made flags global.

I totally get and understand the need for having different stacks in different collections. But you can just "unstack" and them restack as much as you want, according to your new preferences. I don't see why the stacks inheritance is limited to ONE single folder level.

[john beardsworth]

Because as I explained earlier in this thread, stacking was originally conceived as a tool for reviewing and presented the best of a group of images on top of the stack, hence it has details like moving items up and down within the stack. However, people soon started using stacks to implement a persistent connection or relationship between images, because it was easier and more natural than adding metadata, for example. What we're looking at is a clash between these two concepts.

[JohanElzenga]

Adobe encouraged this too, by doing things like automatic stacking of raw files and Photoshop edited derivatives, originals and virtual copies, and recently stacking of brackets and HDR or panoramas. They should have introduced a second type of stack, that is global and also works in smart collections. Like the stacking that Apple used in Aperture. Unfortunately they did not.

[Antoine HLMN]

I understand the need to be able to make different set of stacks, like you mentioned. But I don’t see in what way keeping stacks should prevent this. I’m not speaking about syncing stacks (that’d be another story) but just keeping that property when copied. Like it does when a folder is converted into a collection.

Having two different behaviors is in my opinion more prone to errors and does not makes much sense in an UI point of view.

John, do you have a situation in mind justifying the actual behavior? Where just deleting and re-creating stacks when needed would not be enough?

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Second what Johan said. This thread has been going on for 9 years. Stacks have evolved a little, but there are clearly quite a few users who have a good use case for them being global, particularly with the rise of panoramas, HDR and focus stacking. There is no reason this has to replace the current folder specific functionality, Call it Global Stacks and Local Stacks, or name it something entirely different. It's time for Adobe to step up.

[john beardsworth]

"They should have introduced a second type of stack, that is global and also works in smart collections."  Yes, but as I was lobbying for something similar in 2007 (eg here), I wouldn't hold my breath.

"John, do you have a situation in mind justifying the actual behavior? Where just deleting and re-creating stacks when needed would not be enough?"

I've given examples in at least two posts in this thread of why it's fine as it is now. I don't see why people should be inconvenienced for using it as it was intended to be used.

[johnrellis]

"stacking was originally conceived as a tool for reviewing and presenting the best of a group of images on top of the stack...people soon started using stacks to implement a persistent connection or relationship between images... clash between these two concepts"

I agree there's a clash between two concepts, reviewing and presenting versus grouping similar renderings of the same photo. But I'm skeptical that stacks were originally intended primarily for reviewing and presenting.  

LR 2 had many stacking features designed for grouping renderings of the same photo: Photo > Edit In, Create Virtual Copy, Export's Add To Stack, Auto-Stack By Capture Time (for brackets and continuous bursts).  Stacks were restricted to a single folder, limiting their usefulness for general reviewing and presenting. It wasn't until LR 4 that there were collection-specific stacks, making them more useful for reviewing and present.

The user manual Using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 refers to both concepts:

"You can create stacks to group a set of visually similar photos together, making them easy to manage. Stacks are useful for keeping multiple photos of the same subject or a photo and its virtual copies in one place, and they reduce clutter in the Grid view and the Filmstrip.

"For example, you may want to create a stack to group multiple photos of a portrait session taken with the same pose, or for photos taken at an event using your camera’s burst mode or auto-bracket feature. When you take photos this way, you end up with many similar variations of the same photo, but you usually only want the best one to appear in the Grid view or the Filmstrip. Stacking the photos lets you easily access them all in one place instead of having them scattered across rows of thumbnails."

[john beardsworth]

You'd have to use the wayback machine to go back even further, and I am not just referring to Lightroom. Initially restricting stacks to the same folder reflected LR's folder-based architecture compared with Aperture, and had little impact on the kind of review workflow envisaged and used in promoting the app. Collection-specific stacks were introduced in Lr4 to balance the loss of local flags, which were more useful for reviewing/choosing within collections, and also collections were becoming "creations" (see the Create menus in output modules).  But by Lr2 the rot had set in - after all, it's a very natural way to use the feature.

PS I suspect (and hope) that Adobe would not prioritise changing stacks back to the old way, but what might be more likely is that stack properties could be exposed to filtering (as in both our plugins). For example, smart collections could have a Stack Status criterion, with Top of Stack being one choice that would hide items lower down. Another example might be something more general like the Show Photos in Subfolders menu item, so Show Photos Inside Stacks? The issue isn't really whether stacks should be global or local, but about how to address the practical  problems, and it may be better to shoot for what's most achievable.

[Antoine HLMN]

John, the only example I could find is this one:

So in collection 1 which I set up for a slideshow presentation, a stack can contain images x y z a b c, while z a b are also in a stack in collection 2 which is for a book, while in the folders none of those stacked.

Forgive me if I have overlooked other examples. But in this one, there's absolutely no issue with the stacking information to be copied into a collection. If you want to create new stacks, specific to a collection (lest's say a book or whatever), just unstack and re-stack the way you want.
I'm not trying to contradict you, but trying to find in WHAT situation copying stacks info might be an issue. Honestly, I can't find and example, that's why I was asking.

[Antoine HLMN]

John, the only example I could find is this one:

So in collection 1 which I set up for a slideshow presentation, a stack can contain images x y z a b c, while z a b are also in a stack in collection 2 which is for a book, while in the folders none of those stacked.

Forgive me if I have overlooked other examples. But in this one, there's absolutely no issue with the stacking information to be copied into a collection. If you want to create new stacks, specific to a collection (lest's say a book or whatever), just unstack and re-stack the way you want.
I'm not trying to contradict you, but trying to find in WHAT situation copying stacks info might be an issue. Honestly, I can't find and example, that's why I was asking.

[Antoine HLMN]

Why not keep 'local stacks', allowing to choose stacks according to the collection you're in (i.e. Slideshow, Book, ...) but inherit stacking info when images are copied or when a collection is created. It's already the case when a folder is dragged into the collection pane to form a collection. But if you copy images, the stack stack info is lost. That's not consistent, for the least.

[markusd1984]

Lightroom Classic really can't stack photos when they are stored in different folders, WHY?

At some point cameras save photos in new folders due to the limit of file naming convention.
Very inconvenient having to move photos first into a folder and possibly rename them to avoid conflicts, just so Lightroom can stack them.

Hope this will be fixed soon.

[AxelMatt]

Please take a look here:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/grouping-photos-stacks.html 

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-bugs/issue-image-stacks-brocken-when-insert-into-an...

[DdeGannes]

Removed by Author. Info posted by Axel Matt.

[dj_paige]

Lightroom Classic really can't stack photos when they are stored in different folders, WHY?

At some point cameras save photos in new folders due to the limit of file naming convention.
Very inconvenient having to move photos first into a folder and possibly rename them to avoid conflicts, just so Lightroom can stack them.

Hope this will be fixed soon.

By @markusd1984

We are not Adobe's programming team in this forum, we can't answer "why". And its not broken, it is working as intended, so there is nothing to fix. You would be wise to go to the "Ideas" part of this forum and make a feature request. (Making such a request here in the "Discussions" part of the forum guarantees that it will be ignored).

[richardplondon]

LrClassic can stack together photos, as well as many other clever things, regardless of which folders things may live in, IF those photos belong to a common Collection - assisted by appropriate other virtual attributes.

A Collection that (say) stacks are relevant to the purpose of, and within which they can be seen. The same image (or a virtual copy of that) can thus independently satisfy a variety of organisational intentions, all at the same time, without any practical conflict between.

Say, one Collection contains images A and B but not C, while another contains A and C but not B. Try doing that with folders! They are a practical necessity: everything has to be stored somewhere. But relying on them for your prime organisational scheme, does come with some limitations.

[johnrellis]

LR's stacking design is wierd, complicated, confusing, and inconsistent.  See this summary of all the rules and restrictions on stacking:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/lr-classic-v8-2-1-stacking-missing-from... 

Please add your vote to this longstanding feature request:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/lightroom-stacking-in-folders-and-collections...

[Updated with correct first link.]

[johnrellis]

Moderators, @Rikk Flohr: Photography : Please merge with the existing Idea:

]https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/lightroom-stacking-in-folders-and-collections...