File display

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antonio Correia

Antonio Correia

Active Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
178
Location
Setubal - Portugal
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
I shoot RAW.
I export JPG to the web which I keep in my computer and in the same folder.
So, of the very same photo I have two versions: RAW and JPG.
When I go to Grid under the Library Module, I see the RAW file in one position and the JPG in another position.
I would like to see the files filtered by their names, like:
Image 1.raw / Image 1.jpg /Image 2.raw / Image 2.jpg and so on.
And not the 4th mixed with the 1'.th and stuff like that.I have tried with the filters but I can't find the right one.
Can you help me please ? :-\ :icon_arrowu: Thank you :-\
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Check your sort options. I sort by file name. You will get a different result if you sort by Edit Time, Capture time, Added Order etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, sort order is the culprit. I went through that at one time and it drove me nuts until I learned what it was. The files must have identical names, other than .jpg or .cr2 of course, so that they will be side by side. File name is the choice you want.
I think they should name it display instead of sort. That would be a little more intuitive I think.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't understand why you want to keep the jpg files in the first place, it just wastes disk space. You can export the jpg's whenever you need them so why keep a copy ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=7178.msg489'4#msg489'4 date=124729231']
I don't understand why you want to keep the jpg files in the first place, it just wastes disk space. You can export the jpg's whenever you need them so why keep a copy ?
[/quote]To understand the situation a little better, you want to take a look at this thread: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=7181.' It is not so trivial to get a duplicate export.
Compared to the RAW image, a JPEG takes only a fraction in additional storage so you do not really waste that much disk space.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=clee'1l link=topic=7178.msg48914#msg48914 date=1247312'62]
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=7178.msg489'4#msg489'4 date=124729231']
I don't understand why you want to keep the jpg files in the first place, it just wastes disk space. You can export the jpg's whenever you need them so why keep a copy ?
[/quote]To understand the situation a little better, you want to take a look at this thread: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=7181.' It is not so trivial to get a duplicate export.
Compared to the RAW image, a JPEG takes only a fraction in additional storage so you do not really waste that much disk space.
[/quote]Ah, but that does not take into account (if the jpeg is in LR) the catalog and preview space that is added. granted the catalog space is small, but the previews may not be.

Don
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=DonRicklin link=topic=7178.msg48915#msg48915 date=1247317631].
To understand the situation a little better, you want to take a look at this thread: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=7181.' It is not so trivial to get a duplicate export.
Compared to the RAW image, a JPEG takes only a fraction in additional storage so you do not really waste that much disk space.
Click to expand...
Ah, but that does not take into account (if the jpeg is in LR) the catalog and preview space that is added. granted the catalog space is small, but the previews may not be.[/quote] My catalog is ~24''' images. Slightly over half are JPEGs (about half of these are masters). My lrcat file is 6.5 GB. which is a lot smaller than the 16GB SDHC card that I fill up with RAW+JPEG files when I go for a photo session. Compared to the ~2'' GB internal and network images storage, the Lightroom overhead is trivial.

But the subject is file sorting and if you choose to keep derivative files, consistent file naming that maps to the standard sorting conventions is crucial for it has always been GIGO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=clee'1l link=topic=7178.msg48914#msg48914 date=1247312'62]
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=7178.msg489'4#msg489'4 date=124729231']
I don't understand why you want to keep the jpg files in the first place, it just wastes disk space. You can export the jpg's whenever you need them so why keep a copy ?
[/quote]To understand the situation a little better, you want to take a look at this thread: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=7181.' It is not so trivial to get a duplicate export.
Compared to the RAW image, a JPEG takes only a fraction in additional storage so you do not really waste that much disk space.
[/quote]

I have already seen that thread. I still don't see why you can't use VC's instead of snapshots. It looks like you are trying to use snapshots for something they were not really created for. VC's should be used to create a permanent record of an image state and then all these issues go away. You also have the added bonus of being able to sort / filter and group (via collections) which is far more flexible than snapshots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Compared with VCs, they are Photoshop-style OldThink. They are snapshots of an image's adjustments at a point in time, but you can't search for them and have to know they are there. I find little use for them.

At some point, Adobe have to pull the VC and Snapshots concept together, so you can explode snapshots into VCs and vice versa.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But you can copy them to the Before/After views to compare whether your work is helping the picture
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I rarely use snapshots but have found them useful when doing long-winded edits to save states that I like so I can go back to them. Once I have finished with an image and I am happy with the settings I create a VC, sometimes from an earlier snapshot. Snapshots are an editing tool not a management/output tool.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=7178.msg48999#msg48999 date=1247429262]
Snapshots are an editing tool not a management/output tool.
[/quote]
Beautifully put!

John
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=7178.msg48971#msg48971 date=1247398682]
They are snapshots of an image's adjustments at a point in time, but you can't search for them and have to know they are there. I find little use for them.

[/quote]

Aren't they always in the left hand panel of the develop module?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, that's the only place they are. What I meant, is that the only way to find them is to go to an image in Develop and see if it has any. With a VC, you can see it in Grid, search for it in a smart collection, filter to VCs, and get to them by clicking the x of y in Grid.

Snapshots' one advantage is that they are written to the XMP sidecar. I don't think there's much point to it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=johnbeardy link=topic=7178.msg49''3#msg49''3 date=124743'113]
Yes, that's the only place they are. What I meant, is that the only way to find them is to go to an image in Develop and see if it has any. With a VC, you can see it in Grid, search for it in a smart collection, filter to VCs, and get to them by clicking the x of y in Grid.

Snapshots' one advantage is that they are written to the XMP sidecar. I don't think there's much point to it.
[/quote]John, Thanks for the clarification and distinction. Now that I understand the two types, I am beginning to see the merits of using VC's over Snapshots. VCs appear to bne the better option for managing image versioning.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top