I don't use Collections. Tell me why I should!

[KristinHurley]

Hi!

I'm new here but I have used Lightroom since 2011. I'm primarily a wedding photographer so MOST of my imports are large. I also do engagement sessions, occasional volunteer work, and a few times a year I get photos of my kids and pets. My camera is very much my job so I'm not big on hobby photography. Meaning, when I'm not working, I try not to have a camera in my hand.

I've been very happy with the organization of my images. I'm inherently not an organized person but I've always felt really good about my workflow and image organization. Upon import, my images go into folders named by date yyyy-mm-dd. The software engineer in me loves this. I would simply add my couples names to the end so I quickly knew what wedding that folder held (example: 2017-10-21-Eric&Sarah). Inside of that folder, I added subfolder (Getting Ready, Ceremony, Formals, Reception). And moved image files to the appropriate folder. Note: This is also how I export and deliver my clients galleries so it just makes sense to keep that structure all around. When culling, I start in one subfolder and use X to mark rejected images (turn on the Flag Filters so those are no longer visible). Then I edit within the subfolder.

Is there a way that Collections could be of any added benefit for me? The internet makes me think it's a must to edit in collections but I'm not sure why I would want to add the extra step of additional filing. Filters and Folders show me exactly what I want to see right now.

 

[KristinHurley]

Thanks everyone. Sorry for taking so long to respond. This is honestly my first forum. I'm hoping I can get more involved with this talented group!

I now understand how collections are beneficial to others and how it fits perfectly into their workflow. For now, I'm going to continue on with my process but I will explore some smart previews as I go along. It's so helpful to see how everyone works differently. Thank you for taking your time to explain your process with me.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

Johan, I've heard this argument from others that it is quicker to click on a collection vs activating and typing in a filter. But I'm wondering, do you (or do others) ever build up so many collections that it could be time consuming to navigate through them to find the right collection? Like looking through an encyclopedia vs just googling it.

Of course it's a balance thing. I do not create a smart collection for every possible search I could think of. I only create smart collections for frequent searches. I do use filters as well, often in combination with (smart) collections. Smart collections are also great for rather complex searches, which are sometimes even impossible with filters.

 

[PhilBurton]

Thanks Tommy. These are things I currently filter for now using keywords but I see how some may find it useful. Minus John Beardy's Workflow. I've looked this up and just can't make sense of it. It just seems messy and unnecessary to me. Everything can be done with simple filters.. except for a few that I just don't see why it would ever need to be tracked in my workflow. Maybe I just need to download it and try it for myself.

Kristin,

Lightroom is a big, complex program designed to cover the needs of many different types of photographers, with many different needs and approaches to both cataloging photos, and developing/publishing. No one, certainly not me, will ever need all of Lightroom's features, or even learn them. I think of Lightroom as having the same level of complexity and features-piled-on-top-of-features as Microsoft Word or Excel.

Don't feel "guilty" because you aren't using some feature in Lightroom. Do what works for you to address your needs as a wedding photographer. Then go outside and enjoy the sunshine.

Phil Burton

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

I'm curious, what is the risk to moving image file to sub-folders?

Every move of files around your file system does contain some risk damaging them. Normaly Lightroom does not touch the originals and that aspect i like very much about it. Expect moving, that does touch them.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

This is exactly my thinking. It sounds like it's totally down to preference on if someone wants to type in a filter or set up a smart collection and simply click that collection. I'm very comfortable in using filters, but so many tell me that collections are a must. Or that I was missing out by not using them. I just needed to see that it's essentially going to be the same process. Navigating to collection vs searching filters.

That's one reason I said I did not use non-published collections much, as I do use a lot of keywording. There are exceptions, however, as keywords tend to end up publicly visible if you post your images. So a keyword like "Baseball" or "FGCU" is appropriate on them, but suppose I have a group of "shirtless fans with weird paint cheering"... I might not want a keyword for those, but throwing them into a collection for when the school wants to do a student poster with extreme fans makes good sense.

There was a time long ago when I was in a camera club and might enter contests. Same idea -- I would do a collection of the entries to remember what I had (and so what I had not) entered, but did not want to code the actual image about it.

It's a parallel organizing tool that is external to the image, whereas keywords are internal. And indeed collections are "external" to each other, so you can have a many-to-many relationship to your images, with one collection not affecting any others.

Linwood

PS. Yes, I recognize keywords can be omitted on export.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Every move of files around your file system does contain some risk damaging them. Normaly Lightroom does not touch the originals and that aspect i like very much about it. Expect moving, that does touch them.

And for many backup programs it will maintain a historical copy of the original location, and also a copy in the new location, doubling your backup storage size.

 

[KristinHurley]

That's one reason I said I did not use non-published collections much, as I do use a lot of keywording. There are exceptions, however, as keywords tend to end up publicly visible if you post your images. So a keyword like "Baseball" or "FGCU" is appropriate on them, but suppose I have a group of "shirtless fans with weird paint cheering"... I might not want a keyword for those, but throwing them into a collection for when the school wants to do a student poster with extreme fans makes good sense.

There was a time long ago when I was in a camera club and might enter contests. Same idea -- I would do a collection of the entries to remember what I had (and so what I had not) entered, but did not want to code the actual image about it.

It's a parallel organizing tool that is external to the image, whereas keywords are internal. And indeed collections are "external" to each other, so you can have a many-to-many relationship to your images, with one collection not affecting any others.

Linwood

PS. Yes, I recognize keywords can be omitted on export.

Perfect examples, Linwood! These are great points!

 

[dsphoto]

Kristin, as a wedding photographer myself, I use collections to group images for favorite vendors and venues that I enjoy working with. Rounding up images for a folio category on your website? Collections. This avoids having to have multiple exports and folders. Also, the quick collection (shortcut B) is super handy for when you need to quickly gather images for a specific purpose then name the collection later if you want to keep it for convenience. Using keywords could do the same...but you may not always remember the specific keyword used for a specific category and so find yourself typing in multiple versions of what you swear you called it until something pops up. With, collections, you can group them and have a visual virtual "folder" to click on to bring up your images.

 

[Ian.B]

If you're happy, stick with what you're doing.

this first reply to the thread is about how I see your issue also
And; I don't (really) use collections even if I have a few for reasons I have forgotten

 

[Hoggy]

I'm very comfortable in using filters, but so many tell me that collections are a must. Or that I was missing out by not using them. I just needed to see that it's essentially going to be the same process. Navigating to collection vs searching filters.

Another way to look at it is to only use [smart] collections for things that you frequently find yourself filtering on. These days I only use smart collections. And then as my needs inevitably change over time, I delete the smart collections that are no longer useful anymore.

Also, as opposed to typing keywords, I usually just click the arrow that shows to the right of the keyword. I rarely need to filter on multiple keywords at one time. So the keyword area ends up being my filter.

With the combination of these two things, I don't have that many smart collections.

As for John B's workflow collections, you can just use it to get ideas from and maybe make your own that are more geared to your needs - which is what I did.

 

[mcasan]

file organization can be done using many separate techniques:

1. referenced folders in the computer file system that are based on ideas such as: shoot date, location, subject,...etc.
2. Key wording to give another way. to find images without depending on the file folders
3. collections that are logical groupings of images that still reside where you stored them; collections can be about thing you want...person, place, date..etc.
4. smart collections are created automatically when files has some characteristic that matches the filter criteria you defined when you set up the smart collection. Just like a regular collection, a smart collection just a logical grouping of files that still reside wherever you stored them in the file system folders.

Consider how each of the techniques and features could make your library management easier.