Display entire LUTs catalog in dropdown menu

[aliciaj54495267]

Hello,

I have been having some problems displaying my LUTs.  I have them added to the correct folder but the dropdown menu only shows a limited number.  I have reinstalled the program, removed and reinstalled the luts, cleared the cache, everything, and i still can not get the full list of luts in my dropdown menu.  What is strange is that at the end of the drop down list, i can select the last one and use the arrows in the preview box to see othr luts, but i cant access them via the drop down.  This is quite frustrating as it is a relatively recent problem and it makes my editing difficult as i work with numerous underwater luts, and due to the nature of the alphabetical listing of luts, it takes me ages to get to the lut (via clicking the arrow for several minutes) i am interested in looking to use.  I have seen other people report this issue and i cant seem to find a solution.  Please help.

OS X Sonoma 14.5

Premiere pro version 24.5

Mod note: I updated the title to reflect the feature request.

[R Neil Haugen]

How many LUTs do you have?

There is a limit of something around 200 or so, maybe "only" 150. I cannot imagine using so many personally, but hey, I've only been around colorists for a decade or so who don't have nearly that many LUTs around.

But then, we all work differently ...

[aliciaj54495267]

Hello Neil,

thanks for the response, overall, maybe 300?  I do alot of work with drones, underwater, terrestrial filmimg, so i like to have numerous options to look at and apply.  To work around this, i found i can put half in a technical folder and the other half in creative.  However, it seems a bit strange that i cant have them all in creative.  Unsure why there is a limit.  Also, i can not just click through them, if i select one and want to look at the other luts in the same category, my display preview starts back at the beginning of all my luts and it just takes forever.  I wish adobe would just allow as many luts as a creator wants to use as it's a bit prohibitive.  Some luts people can buy-- i get most from envato-- have 50-100 luts in the single package.  I hope adobe can fix this as i do pay alot for the software.

[R Neil Haugen]

I've tried that method of 'fixing' images. And it's a ton faster to start with a few presets and and trim changes than hunting through and testing LUTs.

I work for/with/teach pro colorists, and none of them would do the process you describe, as it eats time like crazy. And colorists are paid by the time needed for the job. They have to be frugal with time.

But if you like to spend the time looking through the LUTs, hey, go for it.

[aliciaj54495267]

Yes i know it is time Consuming, thats why i posted about the issue.  It would be MUCH easier, if all my luts were accessible in the drop down menu and i could click through a few that were pertinent to the subject im editing. 

[R Neil Haugen]

I think you're missing my point.

Even in Resolve, where you can have massive LUT libraries, colorists don't do your process because by nature it takes too long.

Having several generic presets you can apply, based on clip specifics, then jump in and trim the correction controls a bit on, is what is done by working pros. I've never heard a pro using what you're doing.

I've seen a fair number of amateurs doing so, of course.

[aliciaj54495267]

You don't need to be rude.  The answer is that adobe has a limit on luts, I disagree with this function and would like to see it remedied.  The question has popped up on numerous forums and before a few updates ago i do not think i had the issue.  

[aliciaj54495267]

It does not seem like there is a solution.  Instead, I am being told that my work method is "amateur."  I don't pay for software to be insulted when i am saying there is a small issue with the usability of the program.

[R Neil Haugen]

I am a practical guy. I only care that stuff gets out the door. I don't care spit about corporations or companies, they all make tools.  And when I'm on here, I often try to help people not only with the problems that Premiere can give us (as it most certainly can!) ... but offer help on the processes used.

Because again, simply being practical about things. If there is an alternate or perhaps better way, and normally there is, I may offer one.

In my post, I had no intention of rudeness, and am sorry if you find that somehow. Noting that a process is done far more by amateurs than professionals is not demeaning, it simply is. 

The difference between amateurs and professionals is never about quality of work. It is about the processes used to get a lot of work done, accurately, and consistently. The professional has to be mindful of time, and must produce the same, consistent efforts day after day.

And so, there is a reason that professional workflows quite frequently differ from amateur ones.

As to the end results, many amateurs produce marvelous works, and some professionals are merely getting very routine, boring stuff out the door. Amateur versus professional clearly does not indicate any necessary qualitative difference.

The main difference is professional must guarantee coming up with a usable result at the least, on or under both time and budget, every time out.

As I noted above, pro colorists do not use  the workflow you are using, because it takes a ton of extra time. Those are people working mainly in Resolve, which allows for MASSIVE user Lut libraries.

So they don't have the limitations in LUT use of Premiere, they easily could choose the process you use, but ... none of them do.

So yes, it would be nice if Premiere allowed for a fair number of changes in the way it uses LUTs, and I've  been all over the developers both online and in person at NAB and MAX for a decade about it. Such as allowing us to display folders of LUTs, for quick access. That would be HUGE for anyone using them for many professional workflows.

Think having normalization folders by camera ... oh, yea, THAT would be useful. And I've pushed for that again for a decade.

So I'm not against the general idea of your complaint, nor do I suggest your work is of poor quality at all. Obviously, I would have no way to make such a judgement. Nor am I interested in making such a judgement. It's useless.

I am suggesting, that although your complaint has some validity, your workflow could perhaps be better finetuned for time restraints in ways already possible with the application.

That's all. Suggesting options.

[Kevin-Monahan]

Hi @aliciaj54495267,

Thanks for the bug report. It sounds like it is expected behavior to have less than two hundred LUTs available in the menu, and you would request that the team allow you more LUTs in the menu. I will move your thread into the Ideas forum. I will also upvote. Thanks for the recommendation. I hope the team will grant your feature request as soon as possible. Sorry for the frustration.

Thanks,
Kevin