Lightroom: Export images at multiple resolutions in one go

  • 45
  • Idea
  • Updated 5 days ago
  • Under Consideration
I have discovered through experimentation that photos published to Facebook look best at 2048 pixels on the longest side (the maximum it supports) but images measuring 960 pixels on the longest side come a very close second so that's what I export at when Facebook.

I also publish the images on my own website, which uses SmugMug as a backend and is capable of automatically displaying delivering higher resolution photos (than Facebook) to the browser depending on the viewport size, so I export at 1400px resolution to strike a balance between filesize and image quality.

My problem is that it's not currently possible to export these two sets of images at the same time, I have to do them one after each other (because doing them in parallel is MORE than twice as slow due to LR's poor parallelisation of task execution), manually switching between different export resolutions and folders.

Instead, I would like to be able to pick two (or more) resolutions to export at, set (sticky) subfolder names for them (so that they end up in separate folders within the base export folder), and set LR to export all the images in one go. This would save me a huge amount of manual faffing around every time I export, and because LR would only have to fully render each image once (instead of twice as at present) it would dramatically reduce the total time taken to export both sets of images.

I realise that it should be possible to write a plugin to achieve this (and I'm looking into it) but surely exporting a set of images multiple times at varying resolutions is a fairly common use case (e.g. web/client DVD res and print ordering res for wedding photos) and it would therefore be of benefit to a significant proportion of the LR user base to make it worthwhile Adobe implementing it as a native feature?
Photo of MarcusT

MarcusT

  • 48 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes

Posted 8 years ago

  • 45
Photo of Tom Heisey

Tom Heisey

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I've got to agree with the others.  I often export full size TIFF for publication, fullsize JPG for the client, 2048 or 960 for FB, and low res for email.  For some I also do Full HD, UW-FHD, or QHD for wallpapers.  All of these actions take up loads of time to repeat or to do outside of LR.  This should be a dead simple thing to output multiple resolutions at the same ratio.  Please add this!
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 24 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
It's been seven years since that first suggestion.  Wish I had hope for this idea to be implemented!
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4937 Posts
  • 1918 Reply Likes
How would you envisage this being set up? At the moment, you can do it by returning to the image dialog multiple times. If it was done in a single trip to the export dialog, how would you expect to be able to set the settings for each size?
Photo of LiveAwake

LiveAwake

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Easy: open export dialog, check the boxes next to each preset you want to use, click export and let it run.
Photo of Stefan Redel

Stefan Redel

  • 88 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
There're no boxes to check.
Photo of LiveAwake

LiveAwake

  • 3 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
That's because this feature doesn't exist.  The question was how it should work.  There should be check boxes next to each preset . . . select the ones you want, and press go.
Photo of apmadoc

apmadoc

  • 12 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Option 1 set up an export group - that group defines xx exports - for each you choose file type, resolution, diectory, etc

Option 2 - dialog box, checkbox your existing presets
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 24 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Hi Victoria, I think the most elegant way would be to create export sets that contain export presets.  Run the export set and all the exports presets inside would run sequentially.  Surely that's doable and would save me so many steps every day.
Photo of Frank Kloskowski

Frank Kloskowski

  • 7 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Hey Adobe give me your source code and I'll write it for you. Piece of cake.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 11 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Leroy Schulz had the best suggestion. At least allow us to run multiple presets at one go, and *allow us to duplicate a folder of export presets* so that we could keep doing this for every separate shoot or requirement.
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 24 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I've given up hope that small, useful features like this will be added.
Photo of Jason Robey

Jason Robey

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Feature request: Export presets that nest multiple export presets..

For example, every export I do, I have a preset for full res with a watermark, full res without a watermark, and smaller for Instagram. It would be great if I could just hit export once to do all those.
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 24 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
That's exactly my case.  1) low res without watermark, 2) low res with waterwark, 3) high res for archive.  Every day I do this over and over.  How simple would it be to have export sets where with one click I could export everything?  C'mon Adobe.  With the billions you're making from us with the subscription model, surely you can put a few resources into developing this feature.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 11 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
One would've thought that.. some of these would be default options in the export offered by a digital asset management app. 
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 24 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Agreed.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I’m eagerly waiting for one of the Lightroom apologists to drum up a reason for not doing this.
If we aren’t going to get a basic feature like this I should at least be entertained.. just like they entertain us with reasons for not supporting multiple mobile catalog syncing. It seems like this forum exists only for LR defenders to assert that LR has no problems and everything problematic in LR is done for a good reason.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
I’m eagerly waiting for one of the Lightroom apologists to drum up a reason for not doing this.
If we aren’t going to get a basic feature like this I should at least be entertained.. just like they entertain us with reasons for not supporting multiple mobile catalog syncing. It seems like this forum exists only for LR defenders to assert that LR has no problems and everything problematic in LR is done for a good reason.
How to win friends and influence people?
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
What's the relevance?
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Re-read your post. If it isn't obvious....

Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I know why I wrote it, and for whom I wrote it. Certainly not here to make friends with those trying to apologize for Adobe's blunders, while Adobe makes fools of paying clients. But like I said, i'd like to be entertained if I'm not getting features even after paying for a subscription. Your response was neither helpful nor entertaining and it also didn't defend Adobe.  
(Edited)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Who do you think you will influence (assuming that's what you do want) when you come here as Mr Angry insulting other customers? In this case I happen to agree that grouping presets and running them in one go has always seemed an obvious next step for the export preset feature. I wrote a plugin for myself, and if I can do this it makes me more surprised that it's never been a priority for Adobe. Should be a quick win? But 40-odd votes in 8 years may tell you why not. I would certainly have put this request way higher than reordering Develop panels, but the latter got more votes, just as moving around deckchairs was probably more popular with Titanic's customers than listening to the evacuation procedures. I wouldn't call it "basic" though, or think its absence amounts to making fools of anyone.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Please don’t twist my words. Some day, I hope you will set aside the attack mode and figure out that I’m upset with Adobe and their defenders.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen them simply ignoring a request or a problem. Performance, multiple album sync, and many more issues have been brushed aside. And why would they bother to listen, when they have experienced apologists coming to their defence and attacking anyone else who eventually gets upset with them? No sooner does someone on this forum ask for something good along comes someone else from the community to shoot it down or to say that it’s not a problem for “them” thus saying no one else is allowed to call it a problem.

What you’ve been trying here is a prime example of that. You brushed away this problem by likening it to something totally silly, when you don’t have any right to belittle what others are saying. Definitely not you job to be defending Adobe.

I’m not a fan of writing plugins when I’m paying a software vendor to make that feature available.

In fact you’ve proven my point - if it is indeed so easy why wouldn’t they just get done with it?

Why’s it basic? It’s basic because in this day and age any photographer who adds content online will need multiple resolutions of the same image and it is a pain to keep doing that. When I know that the software creator has smart people working for them, it is expected that they would already be aware of this, else they are not smart.
So given that they are smart, and given that they haven’t made this available for the modern SM&web-focused photographers, I can safely say they are making fools of their customers, especially if it is as easy as you mentioned .

Thanks for the help in making the point.

Finally, someone above genuinely asked what could be a good approach and there were reasonable responses to it. Where did that go? If Adobe is not going to even bother I’m well within my rights to get upset with them.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
42 votes in 8 years - that's probably all you need to know. More people wanted to move their Develop panels around. I don't agree with that any more than you might, but I'd contend that serious photographers' need for multiple resolutions for online content has fallen as more hosting services and web apps have got better at that task. Anyway, this is a place for feature requests and you don't get anywhere starting out by insulting fellow customers. Arguments are next door, room 12A....
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Not to be negative, but I do agree with you, Rick.  When I first started asking questions on the Lightroom forums, I was taken aback how the pervasive attitude of many seems to be that everything is great in the Lightroom world.  Which clearly it's not.  I use Lightroom every day for many hours, and deal with bugs and having to changing my workflow to account for Lightroom's shortcomings -- while the "Adobe apologists" (great terminology, by the way) question why anyone would want to do what you want Lightroom to do.  Well, because it would make things more efficient.  Is that goal really so insane?

Among my circles of photographers, many have switched to other, more agile, more customer-centric products.  I keep paying my fee to Adobe every month, but not happily.

And John, I'm willing to bet that 42 votes represents a tiny fraction of people who would find the feature helpful -- and who bothered to comment or vote.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4455 Posts
  • 1181 Reply Likes
"I'm willing to bet that 42 votes represents a tiny fraction of people who would find the feature helpful -- and who bothered to comment or vote."

It surely does represent a small fraction of those who would favor the feature. But Adobe uses this forum as one of several ways of gauging relative user preferences, and I think it does an OK (but far from perfect) job at that.

To see how people have voted over the years for features:

1. Go here: 
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/categories/photoshop_family_photoshop_lightroom

2. Click the search button (magnifying glass) without any search terms.

3. Click Advanced Search, enter these options, and click Search:





(I don't have a strong opinion about this topic's feature request.)


Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
John Ellis, given that I make my living in photography, I'm after productivity with Lightroom.  Surely it's not a difficult task to implement this specific request.  I can say this from the point of view of having been a software developer for over 20 years.  With the revenue stream Adobe is enjoying from the switch to a subscription model, I can't see this being a matter of not having the resources to implement this suggestion, but rather (and obviously I'm guessing here) not thinking it's important enough to implement.  But it's important to me.  Especially during the summer months, I'd rather be outside than in front of my computer waiting for Lightroom.  So with each passing year that goes by without the productivity improvements and feature suggestions that would make my life easier, I grow less and less enamored with the Adobe model.  If Adobe doesn't care, why should we bother spending time making these feature suggestions that don't go anywhere?
(Edited)
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4455 Posts
  • 1181 Reply Likes
As I said before, I'm not expressing an opinion on this feature request. 
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
John Ellis,

Thanks for Adobesplaining how to check how people have “voted”.

The point here is that I have been visiting these forums looking for this and similar problems for a decade, and there’s always a few dozen people before me who’ve asked for the same thing and someone’s else has conveniently gaslighted them by saying it’s an invalid workflow or invalid request or something like that. Basically, torching anything valid that is requested.

This ticket is one of those. And that’s why it has a low number of votes, because everyone has basically lost hope and they don’t even think it would make a difference if they up vote.

So what did I do all these years, I closed my browser and went back. Finally I had enough and I logged in and vented out.
(Edited)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Funny how your attitude doesn't explain other topics having many more votes.... For some reason this one has relatively few, and the simplest explanation is often the right one. Maybe people aren't as interested in it as you and I might want.

Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thanks again for furthering my point that.. Adobe just doesn’t care about fixing anything despite so many paying customers . When there are so many issues to complain about, people will complain about the most painful thing, that doesn’t mean that the other stuff doesn’t matter.

When you are naked and hungry and thirsty, you will ask for food and water, doesn’t mean that you like being naked. It’s like that.

Change your perspective please, you will be surprised at what you missed in this discussion.

And more importantly I’m upset at Adobe and Adobe’s Justifier team. Are you either of those?
If not, then you are a non entity in this discussion.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Not furthered your point in the least. You've come with an attitude about your fellow customers and you can't accept that others might not care as much about your pet feature as you do. So spare us the paranoia, John E wasn't "Adobesplaining", and Adobe doesn't have a Justifier Team, just people who might have a better perspective than some anonymous keyboard warrior.
(Edited)
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
John B,

You are not from Adobe and you have no reason nor excuse to be trolling me on their behalf. 

As I said, you are a non entity in this discussion.. and stop twisting my words. I was referring to the small - minuscule - fraction of acrimonious gaslighters who spend time trolling users who criticise Adobe. And it was after seeing them in action in numerous threads and posts on this forum.

You have proven yourself to be a typical Adobe Justifier, that I mentioned above. First you likened the request to something nonsensical. Then you said it isn't important enough. It is.  Then you tried to twist my words by claiming I was insulting all users. I wasn't. In fact I was simply stating the obvious that sooner or later someone will step in to attack the critics of Adobe, and lo and behold, you stepped in. After that you've been at it hammer and tongs, trying to attack me in all ways possible as I criticized Adobe and such defenders of Adobe. 

It is people like you who are unable to accept that other users may have a legitimate request or criticism, but have just given up trying to get something done by Adobe. Folks like you are busy gaslighting those who have something legitimate to ask from Adobe. You are focused on demeaning Adobe clients, and insisting to them that their needs are baseless. 

Your posts prove that there exist such Adobesplainers and Adobe Justifiers who have no role in the company itself but take on the job of trolling those who criticise Adobe. 

You’ve been attacking my so-called attitude but it’s your demeanour that needs your introspection.
Adobe and I both don’t need your intervention here.
(Edited)
Photo of Roelof Moorlag

Roelof Moorlag

  • 186 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
John Beardsworth is contributing and helping other customers of adobe for a very long time, i think he deserves more respect than this. You come around and ranting like it is twitter here. why don't you respect normal decency standards?
(Edited)
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
The facts are: it was Job Beardsworth who attacked me, not the other way round. I heartily respect any response from anyone which helps the community. 
I cannot and won't respect a response which is focused on belittling a requirement that is expressed. 
Again, John B had no reason to comment on this thread. 
I said what I said because that's how i've been seeing it unravel on these forums, and keeps happening even now. 
(Edited)
Photo of Roelof Moorlag

Roelof Moorlag

  • 186 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
In my opinion it is not very constructive and i’m affraid that it will not bring you anywhere. To get something done sometimes a friendly approach does a better job.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I agree with what you said, and how you said it.

My ire was directed at Adobe and the select set of people who kept responding to threads and insisting that there’s nothing wrong with Adobe products, and insist that it’s not an important request after all. I have no clue why John B felt the need to respond to that. Unless, he misread it, or maybe he felt that description applied to him.

Let’s take stock of all other responses other than my frustrated venting out - everyone has been cooperative, polite and even pleading, and where’s that gotten us? It’s been brushed away, and labelled as an insignificant request.

So it’s a lose-lose deal: be polite and you get brushed away or told that the problem is not with Adobe, it’s your system and workflow; or, vent out a frustration after too many such instances and then be schooled about being polite and making friends.
Photo of apmadoc

apmadoc

  • 13 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
I decided to step in on this. I’ve worked for Silicon Valley software companies for over 30 years. No version of any software will completely satisfy 100% of the customers. Development resources are allocated on based on a set of parameters - most requested (could be a mix of influencers, reviews, etc), features needed to match or beat the competition, customer surveys. For each new feature, the engineering tea, will calculate the resources needed. It should be no surprise that a feature might be #2 on the priority list based on customer input, but if it’s going to take 10 programmer years of effort, it will likely slide down the priority list

Bottom line there are a lot of things I would like added/improved in Lightroom, but bottom line if you look at Lightroom 7 years ago vs. today, it is vastly improved. My need to drop into photoshop to do things lessens with each release

Bottom line, I’m sorry, but no version of any software will ever make you 100% happy. At anytime you are always able to switch to a better, faster product that meets more of your needs. Complaining on boards about Adobe not responding to every feature you want is simply not going to change the process every software company uses
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Agree 100% that resources are limited as always anywhere. That’s not the point.
It would be silly to demand that they do it tomorrow. Why would it be silly? Because I'm fully aware of how software teams work, having spent enough time with big teams.

Since we are talking about software, let's also talk about the repeated sacrifice of performance & stability for bells and whistles. Performance has been sliding downhill since the LR CC 6 version came out and people have been crying themselves hoarse on these boards, and then they get shut out by others saying there's no problem.

I have been in many many support conversations with Adobe support techs asking them what system would finally make their software happy enough, and the response was pretty much "well, we don't know, and probably nothing will do" because all they could give is a spec on which it could "run" but not necessarily run well. What does "run well" mean? It means 15 local effects should not drag a system with 32GB RAM and SSD down to the drain. But the philosophy on these forums is, if it works for one user, then all the 100 others who are complaining are doing something wrong. Sorry, that's not how "Voice of Customer" works. If 99 people have problems, you fix the software so that those 99 people are able to do their work productively instead of telling them, "hey look, that one person doesn't have a problem, so you are doing something wrong". 
Further to the theme of software management, this thread was started 8 years ago. Multiple people have offered suggestions about how it can be resolved in a simple manner. 

Software teams alternate between "big bang" and low hanging fruit, depending on the demands of the customers. This is a low hanging fruit.

Saying that it has "just 42 votes" is merely a way to brush it away. The last I checked, there's a ticket with 1138 votes, 8 pages of replies, started 8 years ago as well, and still, nothing from Adobe beyond one reply pointing out a flimsy reason to not do it. 

There's another with 400 votes. No word there too. So the "just 42 votes" argument is pointless. 

Are these examples of good software management, are these examples of incorporating the "Voice of Customer"? Certainly not. Adobe is merely blowing a raspberry at users. 

What’s required on this and similar tickets is an acknowledgement that “yes, we will at some point accommodate this, we will add it to our pipeline”. That would suffice. 

While there’s nothing of that nature from Adobe, some folks outside Adobe keep jumping in on these requests to snuffle them out by saying they aren’t useful or relevant. It’s that culture that I’m unhappy about. Believe me, this is not something I love to do, but I'm driven to point this out because it is suffocating to interact like this. As a software customer, I have the right to complain, and also vent out, if complaints and requests from all customers get ignored repeatedly, over support calls and these forums. 

Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
Rick, just understand that ranting gets ignored, while logical explanations of how a feature will make a big difference in your workflow gets given serious consideration, even if that can't be actioned at that time.

The product teams weigh a lot of priorities, and as you've pointed out, each new feature that's added comes at the cost of time that can't be spent on performance improvements.

It's also worth understanding that many of the "Adobe justifiers" have been involved in private conversations with the engineering team and what you see as "snuffling out" requests is usually an attempt to set expectations, based on the decisions they've been given privately. 
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thank you for responding Victoria, in fact you have always been helpful to people on the forum, without ever being patronizing, and I've appreciated that.

In this thread as well, you initiated the discussion asking ideas for how this might work. 

I see 3 parts to the problem: 

a)  based on what you have stated, Adobe seems too chicken to respond directly in the forums, and leaves the unpleasant job of setting expectations to others who have insight into the roadmap. This is the only company I know which acts like this. It is unfair to those clamoring for "low hanging fruit" changes, and it is unfair to those who have to bear the brunt of the backlash. 

b) Your responses are not patronizing. John B's were patronizing, rude. In fact he had no reason to jump in. If he'd simply let it go, this thread wouldn't be this long. He repeatedly tried to poke holes in what others said, giving inane reasons. That wasn't expectation setting, that was aggression to defend Adobe. I've nothing more to say to such a person.
But Adobe should think twice before making such people their "indirect interface" if indeed John B is part of the inner circle.

c) It is an effort to login, add comments, and upvote, when a person sees that the ticket is going on for 8 long years, there are other tickets that have a thousand votes and still languishing. It was an effort for me, to see ticket after ticket being pushed aside like this via proxy, until I finally vented out. It is not something I enjoy. But I've been seeing this for a long time now.

As far as expectations go, I've stated repeatedly earlier, that no one is asking for this to be done tomorrow, but, we expect to know whether Adobe is even considering it? That's not too much to ask. 

But the responses I got addressed everything except the above:
1. Hey, just 42 votes (no mention of that ticket which is still pending, and has 1138 votes)
2. Don't rant here - I have counted the number of times "please" has been said on this request, the 1138-vote request, pleading doesn't seem to be getting any attention either. 
3. "let me tell you how software works, and how feedback is taken" - once again, the expectation is of acknowledging a problem, that's the first step, which Adobe doesn't take. 
4. "Here's a hack, don't bother Adobe, they have more important things to do". Software engineers are supposed to prioritize on 3 parameters: Impact, Effort, and Frequency. If something is low effort, has moderate frequency, and moderate impact, best to get it done with. Or, best to say they won't do it, so people won't waste their time. Leaving a ticket open for 8 years is not done. 

I went through the thread on the $9.99 plan disappearing due to A/B testing, and on that thread, to paraphrase, it was said "phoning in helps Adobe get feedback" --> my question is, if someone is "setting expectations" by telling people "this is not an important problem for Adobe", how's Adobe going to know what their user base really wants? 

As you have their ear, I do sincerely request you to ask Adobe to either start acknowledging the basic stuff that's agitating their users, or, to start closing out tickets saying "Won't be done". Their clients deserve that clarity. 
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
I do understand your frustration Rick. 

The observations about 42 votes were accurate. The relative number of votes is taken into account when prioritizing. The small percentage of votes doesn't surprise me, because it's not a feature that "the average Lightroom user" would use. It would be very valuable to professionals, but professionals are a small percentage of the overall users, so the number of people a feature would help has to be taken into account. That doesn't mean it won't get done, but it's a factor.

The 1138 vote thread on syncing smart collections is indeed a much higher number, so that request will have been given serious consideration, and at this point, the answer is clearly no. Adobe's focusing their cloud sync efforts on the Lightroom Cloud ecosystem, which is designed for that purpose, rather than trying to sellotape it onto a program that has a strong folder-based foundation. They haven't removed existing cloud sync functionality from Classic, but they're not adding to it. So, as far as setting expectations goes... 

They're not closing threads because things change. Some feature requests have been around for years, with everyone giving up hope, and then suddenly they reach to the top of the priority list and surprise everyone. 
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Victoria, you've always been helpful and sincere in the many years that I've known you in several Lightroom forums.  Thank you for that. Unfortunately, I can't unreservedly say the same about many others on the Adobe forums (ACPs) .

Just this morning I had another eye-rolling exchange with one of the ACPs that I define as very clearly "Adobe Apologist/Adobe Justifier".  My question pertained to identifying images flagged in Lightroom with Bridge.  The response I got was "that's like expecting Excel to be able to do that".  Um, what????  Excel isn't a DAM/media management app made by Adobe.  It's the same reactionary "you're nuts for wanting to do that" response that is all too frequent in the Adobe forums and which Rick referred to in this thread.

In stark contrast, I asked the folks at Photo Mechanic the same question and their reply was "try method X, Y or Z.  If that doesn't work let us know and we'll figure out how to make it work."  Why can't Adobe be similarly focused on customer needs and suggestions?  Is that really expecting too much?

I can tell you that in my large circle of photographer friends and colleagues, there's no abundance of love for Lightroom or the direction Adobe is headed.  Many have jumped ship to competing products.  I've stayed, mostly because it's the devil I know.

You seem to have a conduit to the Adobe folks.  I hope you are able to communicate these frustrations to them in some sort of constructive way. 

Thank you.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
Thank you Leroy, although we all have our off moments. ;-)  Our aim is to help find those workarounds and solutions. That can be hard at times, particularly when frustration spills over into a more aggressive manner, it's easy to end up on the defensive. Things can spiral easily, especially over a keyboard, which is missing body language and tone of voice. 

As for Adobe, they have a much bigger audience, and a lot more people pulling them in every direction. While I'd love for them to be as responsive as a small developer, that's not realistic, so we all try to find a middle ground.
(Edited)
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
As I told you, conspiracy theories are fun (but ridiculous.) Bridge and Lightroom work a lot differently, and whether for better or worse, there is not much integration. You want a feature that isn't possible and when told that, you call me an apologist.

Some of us are working pros who rely on Adobe and we have been among the harshest critics. In private, I've let Adobe developers know how I really feel.

So maybe lighten up on the ad hominem attacks against people trying to help you, huh?
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
> You want a feature that isn't possible

I've obviously missed this thread, but this is a feature request forum! It's ok to request the impossible, as long as everyone understand that Adobe does not have a genie standing by waiting to click their fingers.

It would likely be technically possible for Adobe to update the XMP spec to allow flags to be shared across apps, but whether that would ever be considered a high priority, possibly not. I think the chances have increased with the introduction of LR Cloudy.

But the one thing that doesn't change is we all need to be respectful of each other. That's just good manners, online or offline. That includes no name calling, and no rising to bait. Conspiracy theories don't benefit anyone much either.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Hi Victoria, they are (I think) referring to this thread.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/11157494#11157494


David, 

I acknowledge that you have been a critic of Adobe as per your responses on this forum. I am saddened/shocked by the tone you adopted in the conversation. 

Adobe’s own site implies that a 2-way information exchange can occur via XMP between Bridge & LR while leaving out the important bit about flags not being stored there; “Because Adobe Bridge, Camera Raw, and Lightroom all use the XMP standard for storing metadata, each application can read metadata changes made in the others. If you add a star rating or IPTC information to a photo in Adobe Bridge, for example, Lightroom can display that metadata in the Library module. While browsing files, Adobe Bridge rereads metadata, detects changes, and updates previews automatically. ” . https://helpx.adobe.com/in/bridge/using/metadata-adobe-bridge.html#view_camera_raw_and_lightroom_metadata_in_adobe_bridge

The right response to the Bridge discussion (from anyone wanting to help) should have been :  “Flags are not written to the XMP sidecar file. You can file a ticket to suggest that Adobe do so.” 

Daniel’s response didn’t even broach anything about how XMP files work, or what is and what is not saved in them. 

Lumigraphics (which I assume is you, David based on what you said above), explained that “flags aren’t saved in the XMP” and scoffed at the OP for having that expectation. Your words, were “This is like asking to read Excel files in Bridge.” What's the relevance, or the need to say that? You provoked the OP into invoking the “Apologists” term by taking that attitude. Your attitude was wrong, your words were wrong. You overreached. That wasn’t help. And the prevalence of that attitude is exactly what I’m riled about. It wasn’t your role nor your call to scoff at someone like that. 

Neither Daniel nor Lumigraphics (which I assume is your handle)  have not once mentioned that you have or plan to discuss this with Adobe. Instead Daniel is all over the place to justify how LR and Bridge cannot talk to each other. All that Daniel has done on that thread is make Adobe’s engineers look goofy, by saying that “The applications are not meant to work together.” 

“Some of us are working pros” —> This is irrelevant. Without knowing my credentials, or Leroy’s credentials, it doesn’t behoove anyone else to throw this around. If helping someone is your focus, then there’s no reason for jumping into a thread where the Daniel the ACP is snuffing out the issue away by trying to say “you should not want this”. 

LR users are already a frustrated lot, if someone is making a suggest to Adobe or complaining about Adobe, they don’t need a non-Adobe person challenging their need for it. They don’t need a history lesson about why Part X of the Adobe system cannot talk to part Y of that system. The root of the Justifier term stems from people who do precisely that on multiple threads. 

If you don’t have an answer, a single sentence to the effect of “I have discussed this with engineers in the past, they said it won’t work” or "I don't know" or "They won't do it" would suffice, rather than insulting playing clients by scoffing at their expectations of Adobe. 

They are Adobe’s clients, David, not yours, not Daniel’s. Only an engineer from Adobe’s team can & should say that something is impossible. Let them do the job of denying requests, don’t do it for them.

I would advise you to take a page from Victoria’s responses, and even from the response by Brett N, Adobe’s engineer, on this thread, about how to respond to stuff that you disagree with. https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_bridge_keyword_compatibility

By scoffing, you are only doing a disservice, not helping anyone. 

The irony is, when two people used the "Apologiser / Justifier" term, David, John are taking affront and suggesting etiquette, but they don't care when patronizing, scoffing & gaslighting are routinely directed by some "ACP/Champions" towards regular users.

Help = assist. Period.

Help is not using a combination of  “not possible, scoff, ridicule, patronize, history lesson, engineering lesson,” when you aren’t a part of the engineering or product team. Even if you were a part of the Adobe team, you have no right to scoff at some user’s request. 

Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
> The right response to the Bridge discussion (from anyone wanting to help) should have been :  “Flags are not written to the XMP sidecar file. You can file a ticket to suggest that Adobe do so.” 

That would have been a very good response, with the addendum that Lightroom doesn't write xmp by default but can be set to do so.

Bridge vs. Lightroom tends to create as many flame wars as Mac vs. Windows and Canon vs. Nikon. It's a shame, as we're all meant to be on the same side. 
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
There were multiple problems with your entire idea of browsing files that you flagged in Lightroom, using Bridge. Files can be added in place or imported to the LR database. Files in the database can't be browsed with Bridge, regardless of flag metadata being written to XMP. Also, not all files have the same metadata support yet I believe any file can be flagged.

For that matter, folders can be labeled in both Bridge and Lightroom, but there is no way to store a folder label (and remember, this has to be cross-platform.)

What you were asking for is essentially a structural problem that can't be addressed by writing a few bytes of data. It would, indeed, be like wanting Bridge to read Excel files. Wanting Bridge to read an SQL database is pretty similar.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
> Files can be added in place or imported to the LR database. Files in the database can't be browsed with Bridge

No, you've misunderstood there. Files are never "in" Lightroom Classic's database. They can be left in their current location at import, or they can be copied to another location, but they're always in normal folders that can be browsed using Bridge.
(Edited)
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
Yeah I meant the database structure isn't accessible. The way things are organized in LR may not have much to do with folders on a hard drive. And that's not even considering Smart Previews and such.

I was just trying to convey that what he wanted wasn't going to work the way he thought it was, the data just isn't organized that way.
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Victoria, is it really out of the realm of reality that Adobe, with all the resources and talent they have, can't be focused on customer needs and responsive like other developers?  Does their size preclude Adobe from being responsive?  I hope not, though it does appear to be that way.

Anyway, I do appreciate your helpful, resolution-focused approach to helping people in these forums.  Thanks again.

Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
David Converse:

Can you point your alleged "ad hominem attack"?  It sounds like you're using a different handle on the Bridge thread, but I don't see any "attack".  Welcome to this thread.

As for "conspiracy theory"... clearly I'm not the only one noting the frequent deflective/your-goal-is-nuts/everything-Adobe-is-peachy tone of replies in these forums.  There's nothing conspiratorial or theoretical about that.  This tone is an observation that it's not just me noticing.

To the matter:  what Victoria said. As you must know, the photos exist as files paired with their corresponding sidecar files and are indexed in the Lightroom database.  

From Adobe staff at https://forums.adobe.com/thread/972960: "Adobe Bridge helps clear the clutter and lets you focus on what’s critical with features such as the Filter Panel, which lets you quickly locate assets by attributes such as file type, camera settings, and ratings. Adobe Bridge immediately shows you what’s in your hard drive, network, or storage device without the need to import into a catalog or database."

It's not unreasonable to expect that Adobe's product meant to allow searching media files by attributes would work with other Adobe products that let you work with media attributes.

Excel?  Not so much.  Sorry, that shoe just doesn't fit.

As a busy, working pro I have to focus on productivity.  Deflective, patronizing replies to questions are not helpful.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
> Victoria, is it really out of the realm of reality that Adobe, with all the resources and talent they have, can't be focused on customer needs and responsive like other developers?  Does their size preclude Adobe from being responsive?  I hope not, though it does appear to be that way.

It's like the difference between turning a small yacht vs. an ocean liner. There's a lot more people to get on the same page and agreeing. So yes, they'll never be as nimble as a small developer.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Hi Victoria, I respectfully disagree to that analogy on various counts:

1. This is about improving the current direction, not turning it. Microsoft pulled back an entire release within a matter of days after it turned out to be disastrous. Adobe has branched out into new categories of products at the expense of the existing ones; the existing ones are languishing.
If this was a startup they would have my sympathy and support, but they aren’t.

2. Users have the right to complain about delays in responses from Adobe - and more so, after patiently waiting for “yes we hear you” and not getting even that for 8 years.

3. If it is indeed a matter of direction and stakeholders, and if user requests (be it 40 votes, 400 votes or 1000 votes) all getting ignored, who is setting the direction? At least we demand to know that so that we can just jump ship instead of pleading to deaf ears.

4. The hallmark of failed product management is the number of hacks required to get productive stuff done. Adobe forced me to use an insane number of hacks and it has taken me a lot of experimentation and it wastes a lot of time to keep doing it.

5. You put it across nicely, and your message amounts to “be patient, it’s a big company, they take time”, and I’m disgusted with Adobe for making users like you to be the one delivering that message.
Product roadmaps or expectation setting should only be done by the company and no one else.
The Microsoft forums have senior volunteer users responding but they always respond with things to do, there’s no defence of Microsoft’s mistakes. Ditto for Apple.

Why won’t adobe engineers or official reps participate in these forums and set the official expectations, instead of pushing Champions to defend against the user ire ? All it achieves is infighting and distress to all users concerned.

What’s worse is others (I’ve posted links to multiple examples in my threads above) are condescendingly hostile and resort to attacking those who criticise Adobe. There’s no worse ignominy for a paying user.

If Adobe isn’t listening to what we need, Adobe needs to reign in such hostile keyboard knights. The fact that it has all devolved to this situation, is their failure.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
I'm not going to argue with you Rick. I can understand your point of view. I have a slightly different perspective because I see some of the internal workings at Adobe as well as the frustrations from a user's point of view. 

I will just note that Adobe is not pushing me or making me deliver any messages (and nor do they do so for any other badged volunteers). I choose to share my experience of my own accord, to benefit other Lightroom users as far as possible.
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
At some point, this becomes a waste of time. Maybe its my years doing IT support but the why, though interesting, is irrelevant in the short term. Once a feature request has been logged then its more productive to focus on workarounds and alternate workflows. Writing a navel-gazing novel in response to every post isn't getting us anywhere. Neither is railing about "Adobe apologists."

I pretty much never export directly from Lightroom but even I see where the requested feature would be helpful. I'm wrote a Bridge script to export JPEG files since that feature was dropped... I've actually invested time in creating something useful on this front. Maybe I should learn Lua and charge everyone ten bucks for an LR script that does the same?
Photo of Roelof Moorlag

Roelof Moorlag

  • 186 Posts
  • 55 Reply Likes
Something like the 'Big Fat Export Plugin'? http://buggeringabout.com/hacking-lightroom-the-big-fat-export-plugin/ or the different options Jeffrey Friedl offers: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies . Vladimir Vinogradsky offers different export plugins: https://exchange.adobe.com/creativecloud.partner.0011O000020pssYQAQ.html

(Edited)
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
I don't even know what is out there, honestly. But apparently there is a demand for something.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4455 Posts
  • 1181 Reply Likes
"Maybe I should learn Lua and charge everyone ten bucks for an LR script that does the same?"

Maybe you can find a copy of Rob Cole's ExportManager plugin. He passed away four years ago and his Web site disappeared. But a few people have collected some of his many plugins here: https://github.com/RobColeLr. (The consensus among plugin developers who knew Rob is that his informal license allows his plugins to continue to be distributed.) Many of those plugins continue to work in LR 8.
(Edited)
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 680 Posts
  • 207 Reply Likes
I don't need it for myself. But I see a business opportunity.
Photo of Craig Colvin

Craig Colvin

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
The 42 votes thing is meaningless. Yes this thread has 42 votes but I found multiple threads all asking for this feature and they had anywhere from 20 votes to 200. Add them all up and it becomes more significant. 

It's very clear that Adobe doesn't care about what the customers in these forums want and will come up with their feature list some other way. 
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thank you. And it is that kind of talking down based on superficial reasons and Adobesplaining that I’m frustrated with.
Umpteen tangents have been made - oh just 42 votes, perform an advanced search to see which tickets are getting traction, oh let me tell you how software planning works, and oh I’m an experienced user but I found a hack why can’t you also be happy with a hack..

It is sad that I had to paste links to popular tickets to prove the shallowness of these tangents. Anyone who’s had the painful experience of dealing with Adobe support has already been through these forums and has already seen how tickets are replicated then how they are shushed and finally the OP gives up.

While these takedowns happen, Adobe watches merrily from the side, because it’s better to have their users duke it out rather than to have to actually commit to adding something to the pipeline.
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
And yet another blatant example of ignoring user requests, with the whole "I don't need it, why do you?" attitude:

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_mobile_mutliple_catalog_syncing

This one was nipped in the bud, by a "champion", no less, by saying that "hey, it was always designed this way, so.. let's see who votes for it" Why would anyone bother when they see it being pushed down so rigorously? And that ticket also has just 75 votes. 

"no one asked for it, so why build" should not and cannot be applied to no-brainer features like multiple res export.  

Then there's this gem here, https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_mobile_virtual_copy?topic-reply-lis... with 289 votes (for the vote counters) and the "expert" opinion offered is.. "hire your team, and make the changes yourself, because Adobe deserves your sympathy as they would have to (sob sob) build the whole app from scratch again". 

If Apple had rated for people to ask for a smartphone, we would still be punching away SMS messages on button based phone. Adobe is lucky it is being fed with ideas and also workflows for those ideas. But "Adobe and the Justifiers" (cool name for a band, BTW) are more focused on playing whack-a-mole with users who ask for the most basic things as well. 
(Edited)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Quite a blossoming conspiracy theory, eh? 

Maybe read apmadoc's post a few times. It's my educated guess that this feature isn't costly, but AFAIK only one competing product has ever offered it, so relatively-little customer interest may well have been the key. Claiming it's somehow a basic feature and blaming your fellow customers gets us nowhere,  entertaining though it may be. And don't overlook his/her middle "What have the Romans ever done for us?" paragraph.
(Edited)
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
I think this thread is showing a few things:

1) This feature suggestion is not esoteric or unique.  There seem to be many users independently asking for the same thing.  (Thus the multiple merged topics.)

2) Users are getting impatient in the face of a wall of silence about this from Adobe.  The way of the carrot works best, but when eight years of that doesn't work... there seems to be a boiling point.

3) Surely with the brainpower and resources at Adobe, this is a comparatively simple feature addition that can be implemented elegantly and without complicating the export process for users who don't care about it -- while addressing this productivity impediment for many of us.  So many features have been added to LR over the years that I really don't care about -- while this elemental oversight is ignored.  When it comes down to it, I think it's fair to say that pretty much anything any of us do in LR doesn't matter until it becomes tangible through the export process.  So why not make that export process a priority?

4) It is disconcerting when well-intentioned (hopefully?) folks on the Adobe forums gloss over legitimate concerns, bugs and shortcomings with an overtly partisan "nothing is wrong here + move along" brush off attitude.  That's not constructive.  We've seen frustration about that in this thread.

5) Perhaps Adobe staff should respond to threads like this, even if just to say "we hear you.  We'll take this back to our team."  Eight years of silence is -- and I'm sugar coating here -- disappointing.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Perhaps all of the above and
6) Maintaining a feature request forum is a hostage to fortune?
(Edited)
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Maintaining feature request forums may get messy, but it's key to improving the product.  Is there a better alternative?
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
There are many ways of finding out what customers might want, and one can only assume that Adobe think this is a good one. Maybe I've missed something, but do Apple or CaptureOne get feature requests in this way?
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
I haven't looked.  But if Adobe maintains this forum, then why not make it interactive?
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
Because it would be a never-ending commitment? There's a limit to what they can promise, and I'm not sure it would help much to say "we hear you" every year that passes by! The others don't, by the way.
Photo of Leroy Schulz

Leroy Schulz

  • 31 Posts
  • 11 Reply Likes
Never-ending commitment?  Much like a subscription model?  :-D
Photo of Rick A

Rick A

  • 27 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes


If a company maintains their own forum they owe it to those submitting ideas on that forum, to acknowledge and track their requests. Otherwise, there's always r/lightroom. 

If Adobe isn't interested in engaging with customers they should simply shut this down, instead of encouraging people to post here and then shutting them up directly or via proxy. Then we all know without a doubt that we cannot ever hope to get anything from Adobe (BTW it is an irony that the service provider is "GetSatisfaction" lol what a let down)


Leroy Shulz, thank you for documenting everything that's wrong.

John B, you seem to have enjoyed painting me as a conspiracy theorist.

However something is still very wrong with your understanding or your intent when misinterpreting my original comments: You keep insisting and trying to twist my intent as an attempt to blame all fellow customers, and I'm only directing my ire at those select few who keep turning up in many threads just to shut people up. In this thread, that role was wonderfully essayed by you.

If you want to be acrimonious, at least don't rely on twisting people's words, that will give you some credibility in the discussion.

It's my educated guess that this feature isn't costly, but AFAIK only one competing product has ever offered it, so relatively-little customer interest may well have been the key.  
What? So Apple shouldn't have added gestures to their mouse or hot corners to their GUI? And then why does Adobe have the "Enhance Detail" feature at all, by that logic? You have plunged to deeper lows here with these comments. 

As for "low customer interest" --> that applies only to resource intensive features. Something so simple and mundane like multiple export options should be a no-brainer to get done, so that you go 1-up on the competition with a wider feature set. 

Because it would be a never-ending commitment? There's a limit to what they can promise, and I'm not sure it would help much to say "we hear you" every year that passes by
Perfectly Adobesplained, as expected from a Justifier/Apologist. You have excelled at patronizing and insulting people to defend Adobe. If we really were to listen to your misplaced advice, a vendor should only take your money and never own any responsibility. Microsoft did just that, and went down the drain until finally they started actually listening to their clients. 

Your one-sided view, that Customers should have a never-ending commitment to Adobe via subscription, while Adobe shouldn't be bothered to engage with them because it risks a "never ending commitment", is just ridiculous.
Adobe will cut off their commitment to me the day I don't pay their fees. This is certainly not a never ending commitment from their side. 

And why even twist the discussion by shifting the goal post into the topic of "commitment"? Adobe is into the business of making software, to sell. If they keep behaving this way, there won't be enough people left to buy it because others are getting better. 5 years ago people on these forums weren't talking so often about switching, and the frequency of those mentions has increased. 

The problem is John B, the critics are trying to help Adobe salvage its reputation because they've become blinded by their arrogance, and that's the part that Justifiers are missing out on. On the other hand, you are the ones who are doing the greatest harm to the company by telling people to shush.

Your points thus far, John have simply been aimed at antagonizing critics and defending Adobe. No one had aimed any criticism at you and yet you wanted to jump in, and even after Leroy S put together everything in a succinct post for your consumption, you insist on poking holes in it. You really have no credibility left on this discussion John B thanks to that approach. 

Re: the comparison to other companies, I don't know anything about CatureOne's forums. 
Apple has a twitter support team, a very responsive get support site, and unlike Adobe's team, the Apple team provides resolutions in a timely manner. The Adobe team merely parrots out predefined responses. 

Apple has their own forum, and the scenario there is pretty much the same as you see on the Adobe forums. 

However, here's the difference: Apple has fewer well paying customer for its hardware, they know what those customers need most, and they know how to keep them happy. For its services, they keep churning out a slew of bug fixes and listen to the smallest tremors. 

When Apple slips up, retribution from their customers is swift and hard, as it should be, make no mistake about that.. There's no place for feudalism when you are a client. 

Lastly, you patronizingly asked me to read a comment by apmadoc.. I hope you also read my response to that comment, especially the part about "Voice of Customer". But you chose to ignore that anyway, because you think that would be a "never ending commitment" for Adobe, right?

John B, so far, you have tried to misrepresent my intent, tried to school me on how software development works, tried to teach me how customer engagement works, tried to de-emphasise the importance of this thread itself, tried to Adobesplain how features are prioritized, all the while assuming you are The Knowledgeable One and everyone else is an idiot. Please step down from that mound of dirt which you think is a mountain. 

I conclude by leaving you to ponder over this comment from Frank Kloskowski:
I am a Software Engineer by day and I it is a fact that developing this functionality would be "low hanging fruit" for Adobe compared to other functionality requests I have seen.
(Edited)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1196 Posts
  • 303 Reply Likes
You began by insulting other customers, "Rick A"....

Leroy Schulz said:
Never-ending commitment?  Much like a subscription model?  :-D
Best not to vanish down that rabbit hole, but let's not forget that while the subscription model was sold to us with the promise of delivering features, that doesn't mean we should whine if don't get our own pet must-haves. But as you realize, I was referring to your point #5. Adobe saying "but not now" once in x years satisfies few, and how frank could interactivity ever be? Just a simple suggestion of "it's not rocket science though relatively few people want it" leads one angry keyboard warrior to spin into an ever-more long-winded imitation of the Bruno Ganz Downfall scene. While it may be better to have this forum than not, it is like I suggested, a hostage to fortune if we users can't be realistic.
(Edited)
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 4970 Posts
  • 1931 Reply Likes
> I found multiple threads all asking for this feature and they had anywhere from 20 votes to 200

Craig, since you've already found those additional threads, post the links and we'll merge them so the votes are combined. The moderators do try to combine requests asking for the same feature, but they're not always easy to find.