• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • 17 August 2022 It's Lightroom update time again and there's a couple of minor improvements as well as new cameras, lenses and bug fixes! See this blog post for Lightroom Classic and this blog post for the Lightroom Cloud Ecosystem changes.

?limit to number of stacks that can be collapsed at once

Status
Not open for further replies.

David689

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2022
Messages
27
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
Lightroom Version
Lightroom classic11.2
Operating System
  1. Windows 10
Hi,

I am currently working through a large backlog of RAW images, processing about a hundred at a time. I then export those images as jpegs into the same folder, selecting "add to stack". I then select those RAW and jpegs and right click, with a view to selecting stacking->collapse stack. However, the "collapse stack" option is sometimes missing (not greyed out - just not listed). This usually happens if I have selected a lot of images. If I reduce the number of images selected the option is then present.

I presume there is a limit to the number of images that can be selected and then have the stacks collapsed? But I can't find any reference to this when Googling. Am I correct in my assumption? If so, does anyone know what the limit is?

Or is there a more efficient way I could do this? Maybe have the export function put the images into a COLLAPSED stack?

Thank you.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
12,349
Location
Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Power User
The most efficient method is not doing at all what you are doing! There is no reason to export your raw files as jpegs and then add them to the catalog again. Your images are already in the catalog. If you need a jpeg for something, then export that jpeg right there and then, and use the optimal export settings (image size, color space) for that particular purpose. After you have used the jpeg for this purpose, trash it, don’t add it to the catalog. You can export it again if and when needed, with the optimal settings (which may be quite different) for that need. Exporting a “one jpeg fits all” copy is not only a waste of time, it also means your exported jpeg is likely not optimal for its purpose when you use it.
 

Roelof Moorlag

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
1,452
Location
Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
However, the "collapse stack" option is sometimes missing (not greyed out - just not listed).
I'm with Johan on this. Don't save those derivates, just generate them again when needed.
To answer you question; there is a one situation this option is missing and that is when you are 'in' a smart collection. Could this be the case?
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
1,288
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
If your goal is to have a snapshot of what the image looked like at a specific point in time, either make a "Virtual Copy" of it or create a "Snapshot" (both within LrC). Either of these can be labeled with text of your choosing. Of course, even this is to some extent redundant as you can always just step back in the history panel to see what it looked like in tha past - which is what a "Snapshot" is actually doing anyway.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,678
Location
Bay Area, California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
However, the "collapse stack" option is sometimes missing (not greyed out - just not listed). This usually happens if I have selected a lot of images.
Some experimentation shows that when you have more than 100 photos selected, the Collapse and Expand Stack menu items are replaced with Toggle Stack. Toggle Stack expands collapsed stacks and collapses expanded stacks.

There are also other menus whose dynamic behavior changes when a large number of photos are selected. The rationale is to ensure that the menu pops up quickly -- LR has to enumerate the stacking state of all the selected photos, which can take a relatively long time when many photos are selected.
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
1,288
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
John, I'm not entirely sure that the 100 photos criteria is the dedicing factor, or a factor at all as I didn't test that.

In my experiments with a dozen or so images, the key is the state of the stacks in the current selection.

If the current slection contains only collapsed stacks (no expanded stacks and no non-stacked imagtes), then you get Expand, Expand All, and Collapse All. However, if your selection includes any expanded stacks or any non-stacked images then your options become Collapse, Expand All, and Collapse All.
I didn't test this, but it also seems that the context menu you get by right clicking in the grid is the same as the one you get using the Photos -> Stacking menu.

It also doesn't seem to matter if the active image is the top image of a collapsed stack, or any image in an expanded stack or even an non-stacked image.

I really wish they'd just give all 4 options (Collapse, Expand, Collapse All, and Expand All) all the time.

Dan
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,678
Location
Bay Area, California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
Just a while ago I filed a related bug report, along with a similar suggestion for a better design:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/ligh...o-is-included-in-the-selection/idi-p/12797546

The behavior I observe:

- If the selection has more than 100 photos, the menu contains Toggle Stack.

- If the selection has 100 or fewer photos and all the selected photos are in collapsed stacks, the menu contains Expand Stack.

- Otherwise, the menu contains Collapse Stack, which sometimes behaves as Toggle Stack (see the bug report).
 

David689

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2022
Messages
27
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
The most efficient method is not doing at all what you are doing! There is no reason to export your raw files as jpegs and then add them to the catalog again. Your images are already in the catalog. If you need a jpeg for something, then export that jpeg right there and then, and use the optimal export settings (image size, color space) for that particular purpose. After you have used the jpeg for this purpose, trash it, don’t add it to the catalog. You can export it again if and when needed, with the optimal settings (which may be quite different) for that need. Exporting a “one jpeg fits all” copy is not only a waste of time, it also means your exported jpeg is likely not optimal for its purpose when you use it.
I have been doing this for two reasons.
1. I recently curated the photo collection of my father-in-law, after his death. That got me to thinking about what would happen to my own images. They would almost certainly go to family members who have no interest in processing pictures and even less in paying an Adobe subscription. But they would be able to browse and open images in a folder containing jpegs (no doubt wondering about those .cr2 files!). Most of my images would not interest them but the ones of people and events would be of interest.
2. Longevity. Some years ago I was looking through my images and found some in the photoCD format. I had some difficulty opening those and eventually managed to using a utility I found after some Google searching. That made me think about file formats and the future. I wonder how long Adobe will support RAW formats for my Canon 40D? If I don't notice the dropping of support I will at least have the images in jpeg format. I suspect there will be general support for jpegs for the next few decades. This second reason is very much secondary to the first.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
12,349
Location
Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Power User
I have been doing this for two reasons.
1. I recently curated the photo collection of my father-in-law, after his death. That got me to thinking about what would happen to my own images. They would almost certainly go to family members who have no interest in processing pictures and even less in paying an Adobe subscription. But they would be able to browse and open images in a folder containing jpegs (no doubt wondering about those .cr2 files!). Most of my images would not interest them but the ones of people and events would be of interest.
2. Longevity. Some years ago I was looking through my images and found some in the photoCD format. I had some difficulty opening those and eventually managed to using a utility I found after some Google searching. That made me think about file formats and the future. I wonder how long Adobe will support RAW formats for my Canon 40D? If I don't notice the dropping of support I will at least have the images in jpeg format. I suspect there will be general support for jpegs for the next few decades. This second reason is very much secondary to the first.
I understand, but as your family members will not be familiar with Lightroom Classic, it may be better to keep the jpegs completely separate.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,678
Location
Bay Area, California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
I too have been thinking about the long-term after I pass or become incapacitated. In 2007, it was quite an ordeal to find converters that would correctly open my father's Microsoft and Mac documents made 1985 - 1991.

Twenty years from now, there may still be methods available for rendering 30-year-old raws and DNGs, but they may not be accessible to non-savvy family members, while JPEGs are very likely to be readable. Managing the converted JPEGs within LR stacks makes the most sense to me, too. It's easy to find photos that haven't been archived as JPEGs and to update the JPEGs with more recent metadata (using Any Filter and Syncomatic). And anyone examining my files will quickly see all the JPEGs in the Pictures folder and that XXX.jpg is the same image as the adjacent XXX.arw.
 
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
1,288
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
I have digitized several thousdand prints, negatives, and slides from my late father in law and from hand-me-down photo albums from my parents. In order to make this effort live on past my time on earth I'm doing 2 things.

1) I created a private "family archive" section on my website where I'm posting these photos, including ones from my immediate family. this is where I'm asking friends and relatives to add missing information (date to nearest decade if known, people names, location, etc). However, once I go, I'm not sure anyone will continue to pay the annual fees for my website hosting and domain name registration. So,,,,,,

2) I've created a folder under "My Pictures" on my desktop computer called "Family Archives" (with date oriented sub folders) where I'm saving JPG's of those same images that are on the website. The difference between your method and mine is that I DO NOT add these Jpg images back into the LrC catalog, but rather use a "Hard Disk" flavor of an LrC Publish Service to manage these images. Every now and again, I just "republish" any of these PubServ collections where there are images marked for update, deletion, or addition. By using this method, I am not cluttering up my catalog (grid) with these derivative images, The PubServ keeps track of images that need to be updated on disk for me automatically, and I can use Smart Collections to help identify images that should be added to the PubServ (e.g. have a family member in them but are not already in the PubServ).

Here's a sample
1646845347854.png
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
13,735
Location
West Sussex, UK
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Yep, using a publish service made the most sense to me too, but like Dan I see no upside in adding exported jpegs back to the catalog....none of my family would ever likely want to open LrC or Lightroom, so any solution has to be kept outside that environment. I did start the process a few years ago, but haven't finalised it yet, largely because I'm stuck a bit in the middle of Classic and Cloud. All the images that are likely of some interest to my surviving family are already in synced collections/albums, so a huge win for me would be to allow publish collections to also be synced. Failing that, a change to the Adobe Lightroom Downloader to allow albums to be downloaded to named folders (i.e. album names) on disk, rather than the dated folders that it produces currently. Or have a published album feature in Lightroom.

Possibly my favourite option for those like me who have their personal catalog uploaded in original form to the Cloud is to use the shared albums feature. I can create a single Gallery via LrWeb containing every album that would be of interest, then share that gallery with various family members. They can then download (in full resolution Jpeg) all the images in any album they are interested in at their leisure while I'm still paying a subscription (they don't need a subscription or even an Adobe ID)...I just need to ensure some form of continuity for a short period after I'm gone. Shouldn't be too difficult.

There are quite a few things that Adobe could do to help in this scenario, if only they had the will to do it.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
12,349
Location
Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Yep, using a publish service made the most sense to me too, but like Dan I see no upside in adding exported jpegs back to the catalog....none of my family would ever likely want to open LrC or Lightroom, so any solution has to be kept outside that environment.
Exactly my point. Just suppose that a lot of photos are in a collapsed stack. How many people who have never used Lightroom would know how to access them? How many people would even realise this is more than one image to begin with? How many people would know how to switch to the Library module in the first place if you died and the last time you quit Lightroom was with the develop module open? Lightroom Classic is not how you want to preserve or present your legacy.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,678
Location
Bay Area, California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
I assume that my family won't try to open LR but will look in the Pictures folder, where they'll find lots of JPEGs. The method of how those JPEGs got in the Pictures folder is independent of that assumption. I agree that the hard-disk publish service has advantages over exporting back into the catalog, but those have to do with my management of the JPEGs while I'm sentient, not any significant difference in the ability of family to find the JPEGs.
 

David689

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2022
Messages
27
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
I am not familiar with publish services so will investigate this to see if it suits my purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top