P: Stacking in folders and collections should be global

[John R Ellis]

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.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I keep the RAW versions of images on an external drive since they're large, and keep the finished .jpg versions in a folder on my MacBook Pro. In my Photoshop Elements catalog I stack the photos to keep them together and reduce clutter. But when I tried to stack photos in this manner in LR I got an error message saying it is not possible to stack photos from separate folders.

Adobe, please make it possible in the Lightroom catalog to stack photos that exist in differing folders and/or drives.

[ColdForest]

Just discovered this (no stacking in smart collections) :(. Seriously? There doesn't seem to any good reason for this (?)...

[ssprengel]

Smart Collections are created on the fly using criteria so images can be added and removed at any moment by something changing about the image. I guess it is hard to stack within such a fluid collection.

[ColdForest]

I see no reason why the "stacking attributes" cannot be observable from a smart collection. Other attributes (picks, ratings, keywords, etc.) are available and the logic needed to correlate the stacked elements as a secondary heuristic once the smart collection rules are satisfied seems straightforward to me. I think that this cataloging/metadata feature needs to be avaialble from within smart collections.

[Califdan2]

Unless they've changed something recently stacking only works for images in the same physical folder. I'd be happy if I could create a stack containing images from different folders, let alone a collection, smart or otherwise.

Of course you have to go back to the concept of stacking. It was designed to mimic the standard film process of a light table with slides where you "stacked" the slides that were essentially the same image, like several shots from a burst. In those cases you pretty much were only dealing with images from the same role as in the time it took to change rolls the model moved but I suppose one could extend the concept to several rolls exposed one after the other in a tight time frame. Anyway, this is what LR stacking was meant to simulate.

So, within that context, stacking images from multiple folders or collections (which usually implies images that are not essentially the same) doesn't fit the model for which stacking was created.

Now, that isn't to say that extending the concept to multiple folders or collections might not bring added value but it's not what it was intended for and the technology would be complex. For example, Metadata is at the image (or VC) level. So if one image was in several collections with different stack positions in each one the stack position would need to be stored at the intersection of the image metadata and the collection data (a many to many relationship). Not impossible but not likely to get traction with Adobe..

[ColdForest]

The issue of stacking across folders and (non-smart) collections is indeed a separate concern. Stacking is obviously supported for images like those you indicate above - e.g., from a burst, which are likely necessarily in the same folder - personally I do a lot of stacking related to panoramas, which are also, in my case, always in the same folder.

I just tried stacking in a standard (non-smart) collection and this does indeed work (LR CC), including for elements of the stack that are in different folders. A series of images that pre-exist as a stack in a folder do not remain in the stack when they're added to a collection, but at least one can "re-create" the stack from within the collection. So standard collections seem to be fine.

My request here (and the reason I stumbled onto this 4+yr old request...) is related to smart collections; I would just like to see the same support for stacking in smart collections as in standard collections.

[John R Ellis]

"So standard collections seem to be fine."

Note that stacks created in a collection are specific to that collection -- the stacking isn't visible in other collections or in folders. And stacking created in a folder isn't visible when viewing collections. In four years, I haven't heard anyone justify this design.

[ColdForest]

Yes, correct, and this is another annoyance (i.e., folder stacking attributes being visible/available in collections generally). This is really orthogonal (although may have implementation coupling) to the request for (independent) stacking in smart collections.

[bengineer]

LR4: Is there a way to move stacks of images into a collection and have those stacks retain their original stacking "formation"/order?

[areohbee]

I want my stackage in collections the same as my stackage in folders.

I'd be perfectly happy to handle this via plugin, if the requisite functions were added to SDK, although I imagine some people would prefer this option in Lightroom, natively.

Bonus points to anybody who can come up with the SQL required to accomplish this, then I could just add it to SQLiteroom, as a work-around solution.

[joshanon]

I'm an Aperture user gradually switching over to Lightroom. One of the biggest pains I've found in Lightroom is that stacks are collection-specific. I'd really love it if when I stacked two images, they were stacked globally (and the images in each stack added to other collections as needed). Here's a sample of my workflow:

- I have a collection set for each project/shoot.
- I create collections for each card in a shoot, grouped within the collection set, and I go through each collection and rate my images plus possibly edit them in an external editor (Nik suite, Photoshop, etc.).
- I might have 300 5-star images after a two week shoot (think a photo trip), and of those, I'll make a new collection that I'll show people/upload to my website that has 100 of my favorite 5-star images in it. I don't use a "show" keyword + smart collection because I don't want that showing up when I export my images to my agent. Similarly, I don't use flags + a smart collection because I use flags for short-term purposes, such as when I'm picking which images to print for a show.

Given both the original image + the edited ones have a 5-star rating, it's frustrating seeing duplicates when I filter the collection set for 5-star images. They're stacked: just show me the top of the stack. Next, it's annoying when I drag my favorites into a "Show" collection to have to figure out if I'm looking at the edited image or the original RAW. Last, it's really painful if I decide to tweak an image in the Show collection in Photoshop to have to then go copy the image to the original collection and re-stack it there.

Aperture handled this well. When an image is stacked, it's stacked. If I drag an image that's stacked, the stack moves with it. If I filter, there are options to look at top of stack only or the whole stack. It's very simple and elegant, and it makes it easy to keep the original RAW, edited TIFF(s), and any virtual copies together seamlessly.

[John R Ellis]

"I don't use a "show" keyword + smart collection because I don't want that showing up when I export my images to my agent."

Given LR's wierdness with stacks and collections, you might reconsider using keywords rather than collections to manage your workflow. This would allow you to use stacks the way you (and most others) expect.

You can easily stop a keyword from getting exported -- in the Keyword List pane in Library, double-click the keyword and uncheck the option Include On Export.

[joshanon]

John, I didn't mention all the various ways I've come to rely on stacks being global in my workflow. Finding workarounds for every single case will be really annoying.

Frankly I'm just amazed at how Lightroom, which has a database behind it and should be a true DAM like Aperture, really just seems to be a fancier version of Bridge. It wants you to still use folders to manage everything and to play with files directly. That's so funky. I want it to abstract my folders away and really make collections & similar first-class citizens.

[john beardsworth]

I think you are misunderstanding Lightroom. It offers both physical control of photos, and virtual organization, unlike Aperture which only offered virtual organization and hid physical management in the Reorganise Masters/Oriignals dialog.

Folders is a first class citizen in Lightroom, and that's right because we should have physical control of our photos. On the other hand, making Folders so prominent in the UI does cause some people to think it is the primary organizational tool, or as you put it Lightroom "wants you to still use folders to manage everything and to play with files directly". While it's an obvious inference, it's not really true and Lightroom is really just giving you physical management through Folders and virtual management (categorization and grouping) through Collections.

If you want to "abstract" your folders, just right click the Folders panel and hide it.

[joshanon]

You had physical control over where your images were in Aperture, too (at least after version 1 🙂 ). My point was that in Bridge, folders are your primary tool. Lightroom continues that, which is weird to me since it adds a database to sort of let you organize in collections with extra work and care. Br/Lr would be more clearly differentiated if Lr leveraged the database first.

FYI, I'm not trying to turn this into an Aperture vs. Lightroom debate: please don't do so either. My point is just that treating stacks as global elements, at least amongst all collections, would make Lightroom a lot nicer for myself (and from others I know, for many others switching to Lightroom).

[Rikk-Flohr: Do not Use]

It might also break the workflow for many others.

[john beardsworth]

No, I'm not turning it into an Aperture v Lightroom debate, but correcting your assertions. Lightroom doesn't continue Bridge's method at all (and who cares about Bridge anyway?) as Lightroom's Folders are drawn from the database, not Finder/Explorer. Aperture was an exception among DAMs in hiding folder locations and only allowing virtual organization in its main UI. But if you prefer it, just hide the Folders panel.

Similarly, by offering local stacks Lightroom provides more flexibility than a simple global stack, so you can have the same image stacked differently in different contexts. Stacking is used in too many ways for another app's metaphors to be imposed.

[joshanon]

I do have the Folders panel hidden, but unless you're very careful when importing new images (either making sure to click Add to Collection or immediately making a new collection from Previous Import) and careful when deleting images, it's easy to end up with images in the catalog not in any collection. If you have 100 images, no biggie. But when you have tens of thousands...

Reading through this thread, it seems like while local stacks might be great for your workflow, they confuse a lot of people beyond me. If I edit an image externally or make a virtual copy, I want an easy way for that group of images to travel together between collections. Stacks could give that to me. Currently they don't.

[john beardsworth]

It's not many people over 5 years, and what you don't see is how welcome it was to get local stacks when Lr4 was released.

If it matters to you that images aren't in any collection, just create a smart collection using collection name / doesn't contain / a e i o u.

[John R Ellis]

"John, I didn't mention all the various ways I've come to rely on stacks being global in my workflow. Finding workarounds for every single case will be really annoying. "

Much as I dislike the current stacking design, I think it is unlikely that it will change after all these years. So you have the difficult choice of adapting your workflow or using a different app. In Lightroom, keywords can work more smoothly than collections in many instances.

[GeoffVane]

Stacking beyond a folder and collecting beyond a folder is needed a.s.a.p. It has been asked at least 5 years ago so hurry.

[GeoffVane]

About the collection solution:
Sorry but they need to sit stacked in a main folder. The subfolders have to be stacked. A collection works for a subject where the folder isn't important and I use collections for that already, but we work with dated folders that contain too many images in subfolders. 

[Ralph Hill]

I am currently running 2015.3 under OS X 10.11.5.

Stacking, as it exists, does not meet my needs even at the most rudimentary level. The design of the interaction among stacks, folders and collections seems fundamentally flawed. In my opinion, a blank-paper redesign is need. If the current system is too deeply ingrained into the system, then come up with something new. Call it grouping. That would work for me. Just give me something that works across folders and collections (including smart collections). 

Declaration of Bias: I was, and still am, an Aperture user. I am hoping for something better than Aperture to replace Aperture. So far as I can tell, Lightroom is not the the application that I am looking for.

[geoffv60959903]

I don't understand the slow pace with which seemingly simple improvements are done. Some wishes are 5 years old. I got the impression Adobe sells a lot of software and that there should be resources to fix these things within a few months.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I've just tried grouping similar photos together using Auto-Stacking for a sports shoot but found out stacked photos don't stay grouped when making new Collections. Is this really how it is meant to be used – group photos don't stay grouped? Is there a setting I'm not aware of that would keep the photos together even between folders and Collections?

I'm finding it hard to understand why should I use Stacks for grouping photos, if those groups disappear after putting to a Collection.

I mean, for a sports workflow I import each camera to its own folder and own folder for each date – so for a sports event that lasted three days and I used three different cameras I get nine folders, and for example last weekend 3.200 photos. I make one Collection to put all photos inside of it and group burst of photos with Auto-Stacking. But, when I make a new Collection (to sync a smaller set of photos with Lightroom mobile, to share to public or whatever) those groupings are lost.