name display in develop

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

liquidmonkey

Active Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
190
is it possible for adobe to display the photo name in the tool bar at the bottom when in develop mode?

there is enough space, just not an option to click :(
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Try using the 'I' key a few times when in dev' mode, (it cycles the displayed items).
You can modify the items displayed in view options "Control/Apple J"

It isn't in the tool bar but you do see what you want.

Or if you must have the filename in the tool bar, select the triangle in the tool bar (far left) and choose info.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
thanks for the keyboard shortcut!! that helps!

there is no 'info' option in the DEVELOP module which is a bit strange, y would they not include that there? weird :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think there is 'info' in the Develop module, check the bottom section of the View menu pull down. Sometimes I get inconsistency in the I / ctrl-I , ctrk-J shortcuts.

Or have I misunderstood the question?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
which version of LR r u using?
i'm using LR2.' and looking at it right now and there is no INFO option when i click on the little triangle :(

unless i'm missing the total obvious?

ps, i am referring to the TOOLBAR ('t' keyboard shortcut) in the DEVELOP MODULE
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2.2

I'm talking about the info overlay, that Sid described above.

Oh, I see, he described two different tools, I was talking about the first, you were talking about the second. Yes, you're correct, you can't get that in the toolbar, but the filename should be appearing in the folder breadcrumb display at the top of the filmstrip, right below the toolbar.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ok, were on the same page :)

yes, it does appear in the filmstrip at the bottom and when using the 'i' shortcut.

thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
no no MARK, a slight misunderstanding mate :)

the name or INFO does not appear in the TOOLBAR when in DEVELOP as you have noted in your attachment, however, the name does appear in the filmstrip pop up window at the VERY bottom of the lightroom screen when in DEVELOP mode.

i'm very confused as to why LR developers would have the INFO option available in the LIBRARY move but NOT in the DEVELOP mode. there is plenty of space so it just does not make sense to me. granted, there are alternative ways to see the name of the photo your developing (as pointed out by others) but, its not really the point of my suggestion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Right, I'm with you. I look at the filmstrip for this information too, but I agree it should also be in the toolbar -- that way it's visible when the filmstrip is hidden. I'm about to file a feature request for it, and I suggest you do too!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry about all the confusion, I posted a reply and then went out :)

I think we are discussing five options here.
1) Library mode - in tool bar = Yes the filename is available.
2) Develop mode - in tool bar = NO the filename is available.
3) Both Library loupe and Develop modes - "I" can show filename.
4) In filmstrip you can hover over an image and get a filename.
5) The filmstrip breadcrumb trail will show a filename.


FWIW there are a few other places the filename is shown as well, how many options do you need :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
good points and thank you, but personally, i'm just looking for a bit of consistency with software.

no one has pointed out why adobe fails to leave the filename out from the toolbar in develop mode. if there was a good reason, sure, plenty of alternatives, no worries.

in fact, if adobe stuck with what works, you wouldn't need all the alternatives you mentioned :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
official feature request............DONE!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
liquidmonkey said:
good points and thank you, but personally, i'm just looking for a bit of consistency with software.

no one has pointed out why adobe fails to leave the filename out from the toolbar in develop mode. if there was a good reason, sure, plenty of alternatives, no worries.

in fact, if adobe stuck with what works, you wouldn't need all the alternatives you mentioned :)
Click to expand...

No idea why Adobe left it out.

But let me ask a different question and take a different approach, why would someone need a filename when developing an image?

I would guess that in single screen mode most folk want as much screen real estate as possible, i.e. they do not use the toolbar. (Shift Tab is a good option here). All the items in the develop toolbar are available via keyboard shortcuts, so for me not displaying the toolbar is normal.

Filenames are a legacy issue, I do not use filenames to find files, metadata and keywords are my search keys. Hey, I don't really use folders either, because that is also legacy stuff.
Historically we have all been forced into using files and folders, it was the best we could do with the systems that were available. well guess what, that is not the best way to store or look for images.

Still no reason for Adobe missing it :)

My vote , scrap filenames in all tool bars. Hmm, maybe I should file a feature request for that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sid-EOS said:
But let me ask a different question and take a different approach, why would someone need a filename when developing an image?
Click to expand...

good question and i can only answer that when developing, i DO LIKE to know which image it is, nothing special really, just like to know which one i'm on and there are a few other reasons as well...

Sid-EOS said:
Filenames are a legacy issue, I do not use filenames to find files, metadata and keywords are my search keys. Hey, I don't really use folders either, because that is also legacy stuff.
Historically we have all been forced into using files and folders, it was the best we could do with the systems that were available. well guess what, that is not the best way to store or look for images.
Click to expand...

i think that is a personal issue, how to organize items on a computer.
personally, i'm a big folder fan and organize everything by folders. i get that metadata and keywords are the way to go these days but there is something with the organization of folders that i just can't do without.

ask 3' people to organize a group of files or pictures on a computer and you'll get at least 1' different ways :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I like to see the filename because it has the date of the shoot in it, which for me is also the folder name. For some reason I find myself wanting to know that pretty regularly, though at this particular moment I'm not sure why.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I like to see the filename because it has the date of the shoot in it, which for me is also the folder name.
Click to expand...


there is something with the organization of folders that i just can't do without.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you guys have to start thinking about what happens when we get operating systems that do not "do" folders :)

Coming to a computer near you in your lifetime!

I know, it is about familiarity and comfort factors, believe me there is a better way.

How do you find music, by the release date, or the date you bought it, or by the filename, nah ? A better way would be, by artist, title, partial lyric, humming the tune etc. Right now you can hold up an iPhone and it will listen to music being played, within seconds it can tell you what track is, and the album it comes from.
It is about content and descriptive access not a fixed data format.

Why not search images by predominant color, keyword, event name, composition, metadata, proximity to a GPS coordinate, real descriptive stuff?
Instead, we keep on using a rigid directory/folder structure :(


Steps off of soapbox :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sid, are you saying you just throw everything into one humongus folder and just be sure it has a keyword to find it later. Kinda scary at first thought, but it would sure make life easier not having to mess with file structures, etc. Hummn....
I see we posted about the same time. Good food for thought.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What I am saying is, I let LR put the images into date based folders, because it can do that without bothering me (and the Operating system runs that way).
I do not look up files by folder date (I use metadata capture date/time, if I need to).

I search in different ways.....Yes scary at first, but liberating when you do it.

Imagine taking the time to keyword an image with its predominant color, how helpful could that be. Plenty of software can already look at faces and match them to a name, why not use that and other types of technology to auto keyword certain things.

What could be done on this in the near future?
GPS data, could be mapped to add the names of locations, and proximity to special locations.
Sky, sea, beach, forest, buildings, grass, objects, cars, planes, transport vehicles, pets and animals could all be detected and keywords entered. Cross reference the GPS data with the fact that the software has "seen" a building, what do you get? Building identification.

There is clearly a lot that systems can do, files and folders, c'mon it does look a bit dated really :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@sid-eos

its true that files and folders have been around since DOS and are probably dated by different standards but the fact remains that we organize our real life things in the same way. any office organizes actual items in a folder type way. inventory is done the same way, its not thrown into one pile and someone yells out digital and all the digital stuff pops out.

my only point with the above is to say that i like folders on computers cause thats the way i do things at work and at home with real life stuff.

the other reason why i like folders is that if and its a BIG IF, the original database file gets lost, i still have a method of finding my stuff (photos, music and movies) that i'm familiar with.

even itunes organizes your music into folders (of course that is based on id3 tag info).

another reason is that i keep my photos and movies all in the same directory and at the moment, LR doesn't let me mix and match stuff.
for example, a trip to new zealand will be in a folder ''8-'4-23 New Zealand' then there are sub folders for 'movies', '6MP RAW', 'panoramics', 'HDR' and 'notes'.


its awesome that picasa and LR programs let u add metadata with colors, stars, words etc, but personally, i don't feel all that comformtable leaving a decade worth of pics, movies and notes on only one database file or even in one location that to the naked eye is just a jumble of crap, but maybe thats just me :)

ps, i do backups regularily too :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sid, I do all that. I let Lightroom file into folders by date, and they stay there the rest of their lives. But the folders do matter, because of the way I organize my files as they're worked on -- Initially they get loaded onto my laptop and simultaneously backed up to two other locations. Later, they can be deleted from my laptop, by folder.

Because I only keep "working files" on my laptop, so that I can work on them when away from my other storage, I need to manipulate files on disk too.

I could do this using a working catalog and a main catalog, but that's really quite a bit more cumbersome than what I do today, at the price of having to care about the file structure.

When I come across an OS that uses a different storage model, I'll adapt to it, but directories have been serving me well for 3' years or so...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, how about real life then:

When you go into a real physical library (if it is open), you can ask for a book.
You do not need to know where the book is because the librarian has a system that works. You benefit from the system. Why would you learn how the librarian finds the book, when he//she is reliable and can provide what you want, with no issues fuss or bother.

We all know that files and folders on computers are just a way of looking at binary data on a disk (or other storage medium) in a more human way, we accept that it works most of the time, the result of this is that very few people bother to learn how to examine or manipulate the low level data bits, there is clearly no need.

Step back one more level from files and folders and you get to access the data in a better more human way, and once you trust it, it is then natural to do things in this "new" way.

BTW, real life files and folders are a really bad way to store documents, very slow access for a start. That is why loads of documents are transfered to computer storage, or never become physical documents.

Devils advocate bit:

Lots of computers crash (fail in some way), we trade off the risk because of the benefits. We also run backups to mitigate the risk.
Does it mean that we should keep hardcopy images (like hi-def transparencies) because of the risk of a computer crash?

On backups, yes I expect everyone to keep them. But, how many do you keep, do you have off site backups. Just copying data to another disk is not enough.

There are two types of photographers, those who have lost images and those who will lose images. The clever bit is how you recover.
:)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sid, let's get back to the real world (and back to the original topic). You're saying you would be absolutely fine if Lightroom never showed you the filename or folder name?

I don't use these things to locate files. Like you, I use other metadata, keywords, etc. But the files don't exist solely in Lightroom, and in order to manage those assets from capture to delivery (and re-delivery) I need the filename and folder name.

Maybe I could come up with a workflow that reduced that need, if I wanted to spend the time to do so. But why is it important for me to do so?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top