Lightroom: Organize module

  • 5
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
  • (Edited)
Of course you can organize, move, rename folders, images and collections in the Library Module but wouldn't it be nice if, instead of having just the narrow panel of folders and collections, you had a nicely thought out, large, screen-sized interface that was built from the ground up to allow you to do all of those things.

For example, I actually find it easier if I have to move folders that are not next to each other in the panel by going to the Mac Finder, opening multiple windows, remembering what I've done and then going back to Lr and telling the catalog about my moves/changes.

Why not let you show multiple folder hierarchies etc. so you can organize sanely? I have not thought out all the details but I know there must be a better way than using one skinny list of folders. It might not take a new module maybe just some different view choices in the Library.
Photo of Steve Gandy

Steve Gandy

  • 119 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 2 years ago

  • 5
Photo of Michel DELFELD

Michel DELFELD

  • 251 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
This idea may be interesting.
I never though about that... Perhaps because I have the folder organisation I need?
I don't change my folders a lot, and for sure if they are already known by the LR database, I will surely not make changes in the finder! This can bring a terrific mess in the LR DB. (Remember, if you use DB to change some external elements, never change these external elements outside the DB management)
When I create new folder it depend on why I do it. A brand new one to classify new pictures? Then the folder will be created by the App I use to develop my RAW's (and make a sync into LR to get these new folders/pictures) or they are simply generated by the LR import process.
It occur that some time, to make the organisation more easy, that I create new folders within LR, but I never thought on the solution you suggest.

Now, why not having this kind of suggestion you do? Perhaps I would find this evolution very useful?
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 1985 Posts
  • 820 Reply Likes
The idea behind collections and smart collections is that they are like 'virtual folders', with the great advantage over real folders  that an image can be in as many virtual folders as you like. Organising images in real folders often fails, because images would often need to be in more than one folder. For example: if you have a folder 'Family' and a folder 'Vacation', where do you store images of your family on vacation?

That is why the recommended method is to simply store your images in dated folders (that Lightroom can generate automatically on import), and use collections and smart collections to organise them. And that is why I doubt very much that Adobe will spend time on a suggestion like this.
Photo of Steve Gandy

Steve Gandy

  • 119 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
So, you are assuming that Lightroom will be your software choice forever? Forever is a long time. Lr's collections may or may not migrate if the time comes to change software. Don't get me wrong. I use collections quite a lot, but I archive in folders and with keywords.
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 1985 Posts
  • 820 Reply Likes
No, I don't assume that. If the moment comes that I decide to leave Lightroom, and my new software cannot import a Lightroom catalog and so it does not import Lightroom collections, then I can always use 'Export as Original' and export each collection. Of course I use keywords as well, so assigning a temporary keyword for each collection is another way of getting them across easily. As far as I'm concerned organising in Lightroom is not using keywords or collections, it's using both. But my folder panel remains collapsed 99% of the time.

Anyway; I'm not trying to turn you over from the dark side, I'm just trying to explain why I don't think Adobe will spend time on a module to reorganise folders.
(Edited)
Photo of Michel DELFELD

Michel DELFELD

  • 251 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
Steve, on the market there is so many catalog system on the market, i.e. photo-melanic (one of the good one) that if you'r not happy, you can choose an other one and leave LR. However, LR is really not bad as catalog system. Any way..... As soon as you make a choice you are almost married with it. This said, by working logically, with a little work, it's not so difficult to change of application.
The other very interesting aspect is the "total" solution for a lot of photographers. This said, I feel that the way you work let me think that you must have a high number of folders. And moving them from one place to an other, your classification must become terribly complex. 
Photo of Steve Gandy

Steve Gandy

  • 119 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
Johan, you are right on the ability to export collections and the use of keywords and collections. I do all of that. But I think that some of us do use folders as a primary organization backbone to our workflow and the manipulation of those folders could be way better. Not sure what "dark side" you are referring to.
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 1985 Posts
  • 820 Reply Likes
The 'dark side' is using folders as primary organization backbone. :)
Photo of Steve Gandy

Steve Gandy

  • 119 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
Michel, I don't want to leave Lr. I love it. I am a Lr and Ps consultant/educator. I'm just pointing out that a feature could be improved. If some users didn't want to manipulate the folder structure within Lr, why is it there at all?

My folder structure  isn't all that complex but I do find the need to nest some folders, consolidate some etc. I would just like to do it in an environment at least as simple as the Mac Finder or the Windows Explorer. Lr already allows this...just not well enough in my opinion.
Photo of Michel DELFELD

Michel DELFELD

  • 251 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
OK
Photo of John Hansen

John Hansen

  • 31 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Steve,

Thanks for your help.

As a relatively new user who is just beginning to learning about the LR folder management capabilities, I watch video tutorials that imply that you can and should do file and folder management in LR rather than in the OS (Windows or Mac). The truth I realize now is that the LR capabilities are not as strong nor as similar to Windows as I wished they were. Once I learn what LR can and cannot do in the area of file/folder management, I am sure the best functional folder tree structure will become apparent to me. I also like to nest folders and I may need to limit that as I move forward.
Photo of John Hansen

John Hansen

  • 31 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Steve,

Thanks for your help.

As a relatively new user who is just beginning to learning about the LR folder management capabilities, I watch video tutorials that imply that you can and should do file and folder management in LR rather than in the OS (Windows or Mac). The truth I realize now is that the LR capabilities are not as strong nor as similar to Windows as I wished they were. Once I learn what LR can and cannot do in the area of file/folder management, I am sure the best functional folder tree structure will become apparent to me. I also like to nest folders and I may need to limit that as I move forward.
Photo of Michel DELFELD

Michel DELFELD

  • 251 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
I like very much your exemple Johan! This is what I explain to my students. Keywords! and a good DB engine, that's the must

I must add one thing,
Key words and dynamic collections are the must in LR. I am essentially using both collection type to work on my pictures. However, it occurs regularly that after having been working a lot on key words, LR is slowing down drastically for a while, this must be related to DB reorganisation.
 
Photo of Steve Gandy

Steve Gandy

  • 119 Posts
  • 37 Reply Likes
The extended folder organization should extend to the Collections as well. If you have complex groups of Collections, it would be nice to have a larger area to organize easily.