Organizational Management - Stacking

[Microscopia]

I have tried different photo organizational, management and editing systems, and must admit LR appears to have the edge with respect to its speed and ease of use, but there appears to be one main flaw when it comes to its organizational abilities.

Unless I am missing something here, the Adobe LR programmers seem to have lost their way when it comes to the stacking facility, (see also the earlier slightly different posting related to stacking within collections), even though the stacking facility is already well and truly tried and tested in Photoshop Elements 5 Organizer.

LR even advertise on p9 of their own manual of the 'advantage: LR lets you preserve the current organizational structure of your folders' however they fail to mention that if you do, then stacking may not work for you, as in my own case, since it's impossible to stack photos from different folders!! Yet you can do it in Photoshop Elements!!

Surely the idea of stacking is to tag similar photos for whatever reason, be it location, type, style, etc. etc... for easy access and comparison, as in my case where I have a mixture of low resolution screen index photos linked to archived reel film, strip film and digital images, edited captioned images suitable for printing and high quality black & white archived photos, all of which reside in different folders. The only way I can make the system work with LR is to copy and dump them all in one folder! Not the ideal arrangement as the integrety of the system is compromised in favour of LR!

So come on boys - finish the job properely!

 

[Mark Sirota]

I think for the purpose you describe, most of us use Collections.

Stacking is more commonly used for lots of very similar shots (a dozen or more shots of the same pose, for example). You narrow the field down to one "pick", put that one on top, and collapse the stack.

 

[Microscopia]

Hi Mark,

I know what you're saying, but the folders I refer to are already collections, so LR collections would not be the answer. The stacking you refer to works in a rather limited manner and is ideal for a typical 'digital shoot' - period!

No doubt you are aware of how Photoshop Elements Organizer works and will know the difference between the stacking abilities there and the rather limited abilities here in LR.

The point is that Adobe LR actually highlight the advantage of preserving users' current organizational folder structures - this statement is true, only if users are prepared to forego the limited stacking facility which does not work across folder boundaries!

I'm no programmer, but surely the stacking routine from Elements could be incorporated into LR!

 

[Mark Sirota]

Actually, I'm not familiar with stacking in Elements -- I aven't used Elements since several versions ago. But I'll certainly agree that the stacking functionality in Lightroom is limited and lacking -- I don't mean to be defending it, just trying to explain it.

You're used to the way stacking works in Elements, but that doesn't mean that's the only way to solve the issue that you're trying to solve. While Lightroom's function of the same name doesn't meet your needs, perhaps there is another way to get it done.

In the meantime, go ahead and submit a feature request for more thorough stacking functionality.

 

[Microscopia]

Mark,
There is a solution to the problem - but it does compromise the integrity of the existing folder structure, and that is to dump everything into the same folder, making stacking readily available. Bye the way you mentioned the use of collections in your earlier reply; that would have been ideal, but unfortunately the stacking facility is not even available within those!!

Thanks for the link - request submitted

 

[Microscopia]

Further Stacking Limitations

I have since discovered further limitations to the stacking facility within LR which is a bit of a pain. When undertaking a library search using the quick keyword tags, there is then no way of selecting out and stacking images from the displayed search result; so if the intention is to search and stack, then it can only be undertaken from the find text box, which can become a bit tedious. This may not be a problem for those who use LR purely for digital shoot and store, but when it's used for searching thousands of archived digitized films and prints it can become a bit frustrating to say the least!

So far: LR stacking does not work across folder boundaries. It does not work in collections. It does not work with keyword search tags

I would suggest this stacking facility requires a major overhaul!

 

[Mark Sirota]

That's all correct, and most would agree, Stacking should work in other views besides Folder view.

Still, if you can step back and explain exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish, perhaps we can recommend a way to get it done without stacks and without reorganizing your folders.

You originally wrote, "stacking is to tag similar photos for whatever reason." I don't agree, and I don't think most others agree. You can tag your photos for content, mark their location, and then easily grab them all "for easy access and comparison". You don't need stacks to accomplish that.

 

[Microscopia]

Mark - Ok so here is the LR challenge - let me explain the system I operate first, which incidentally works well in Photoshop Elements 5.
I decided to transfer to LR from Photoshop Elements to manage both my existing archive of early 193's’ -199's’ 35mm reel films and various other negative formats and non-film prints which date back to the 191's’, together with my current digital image format using my Nikon D2''. So rather than using the slow and unfriendly Nikon Capture NX or the limited Photoshop Raw Converter with Photoshop Elements and its Organizer, I thought that LR would be the answer with its user friendly and superior raw image editing speed, non-destructive editing and inbuilt organizer. LR is ideal and works well for me with the Nikon and newly input digital images, so I do not have a problem with that aspect of it. However the problem is in managing and handling my existing system which contains approx. 8,''' early archived images as follows:-

The folder structure is:-

IMAGE PROCESSING FOLDER:
CAMERA HOLDING FILE (LR. WATCHED FOLDER)(NIKON D2'' FC DOWNLOADS INTO THIS)

IMAGE VAULT:
SCREEN INDEX: (LOW RESOLUTION SCREEN INDEX IMAGES )
IMAGES: (HIGH RESOLUTION DIGITIZED EARLY FILM NEGATIVES & NON-FILM PRINTS, V7'' SCANS, EDITED IMAGES)
RAW FILE ARCHIVE (NEF RAW FILES AUTO IMPORTED BY LR FROM WATCHED FOLDER)

LIGHTROOM CATALOGUE:


NOTES:
This structure (excluding the LR Catalogue) worked well in Photoshop Elements and allowed me to stack a set of images as follows:
For this example I will use one of my archived 1942 war-time Malta images digitized from the negative. Original high resolution scan via my Epson V7'', stored in the Images folder. Photoshop Elements is then used to produce both a low resolution image containing a descriptive border caption, stored in the Screen Index folder and also edited/restored and border captioned high resolution versions suitable for printing stored in the Images folder. Bear in mind that I may batch scan anything from 2-2' negatives at a time, depending on their size, and I may not spot any faults such as newton rings, when their size means that the film carriers cannot be used in the V7'', so I may end up with several original scan versions undertaken at different times of some images and have several different versions of the edited image, depending upon its end use. All images will then be imported at their original locations (Screen Index / Images) into the LR Catalogue, tagged, captioned, copyrighted etc..and then stacked (so I thought) together using the low resolution screen index image at the top of the stack

STACK
Top of stack, the low resolution image ''21-W6-A3-F1.TIFF from the Screen Index, available for quick on-screen viewing at 1''% and use by others when dumped to DVD. (These images have indexed filenames, in this example identifying image No.''21 with the location of its negative in Film Wallet no.6, the print if any originated from Album No.3, with modern reprints being located in Archive Folder No.1
Next in the stack, but not necessarily in any order will be the original high resolution scan(s) from the Images file Malta''14.TIFF, the high resolution edited and sometimes restored images suitable for printing from the images file Malta'115.TIFF and Malta'12'.TIFF, these contain border descriptive captions.
The advantage of working with this type of stack is that since all images are keyword tagged, (to date some 12' keywords in operation indicating not only the obvious, family names, transport types, locations, dates etc. but also tagged as to the image type and status ie: edited version, whether or not printed, non-film print, compact film, reel film, strip film, V7'' scan available, digital, etc.), I can search the 8,''' odd archived images and usually find not only what I’m looking for, but also by expanding the stack (which incidently cannot be done within the LR keyword tag search - another gripe!) I can view its history and have to hand all available image versions and be able to select any for re-editing if required, or instant reprinting. Conversely, since work is still in progress, with only the low resolution screen index images being totally complete, I can easily see by accessing the stack what needs to be done, the low resolution indexed image tags indicate whether or not a high resolution scan has been undertaken or whether it has a high resolution edited version, or has already been printed. This is useful as the maintenance of the archive is an ongoing process, as many images have yet to be scanned, edited or restored!
The problem is that the LR stacking routine will not allow stacking images from the Screen Index folder with those from the Images folder - result - system will not operate - only solution so far discovered is to dump everything in one folder!
You can perhaps now see why an improved LR stacking facility is required to operate between folders and with keyword tag searching. Stacking within collections would be an added bonus.

 

[Brad Snyder]

So, in 25 words or less, you need stacking(association) across folders? I believe that is a much requested enhancement; you can add your voice to the debate by ratifying the feature request. The development team will be to some extent greasing the squeakiest wheels.

The quick work around that I see, is to use LR to find your ''21-W6-A3-F1.TIFF from the Screen Index, by whatever means, and have all the associated derivative files keyworded with that image name, or some unique index, to identify the associated pix.
That's obvious enough that I'm sure you've considered it already and encountered some other gotcha' ?

I'm inclined to agree that the core of your request, cross-folder association, is worthwhile; it remains to be seen how the engineers prioritize it.

....brad s

 

[Microscopia]

Thanks Brad - you've just invented 'stacking'

 

[Mark Sirota]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I agree, there's no good way to solve this using your existing folder structure and Lightroom's current stacking model.

If you want to continue to use Lightroom and preserve your basic approach, I would suggest that rather than using folder names to describe the type of image file, use filenames, keyword tags, color labels, or collections.

I suggest that approach because you haven't explained any reason that your folder structure needs to be that way, other than that it worked in Elements. If there are other reasons why the folder structure is significant, then perhaps I'd suggest something else.

It's important to understand that changing workflow software is certainly going to require some adaptation. Lightroom isn't trying to mirror Elements, just as it isn't trying to mirror Bridge or Aperture or anything else. No existing workflow is going to plug right in...

 

[Microscopia]

Mark - Thanks for the input and suggestions. I agree with you about changing the file structure, and have already done so by moving all the early Screen Index & Image files into the same folder. I can still keep the indexed file names the same for operational reasons and use keywording tags, stacks etc. to manage them. I have since found a solution to the problem of being unable to stack from within a keyword tag search, so everything appears to work well.

Apart from the niggles we've discussed, I really like LR with its uncluttered user friendly interface and speedy raw editing, so it's worth a bit of work adapting to it!

Hopefully sometime in the near future Adobe will revamp the stacking facility.

 

[SteveF]

I just noticed this thread. I also submitted a feature request to Adobe - hope others will do the same.

Personally I have on my hard drive one folder called DNG, within this are subfolders, each with about 25' dngs, in order by date. Another top level folder is "Derivative", with a similar sub-structure. Naming is Name_yearmonthday_xxxx.dng and xxxx_Edit.tif or whatever, so that when imported into LR the dng's and derivatives will alphabetically line up.

I load both (DNG and Derivative folders) into LR's library, and might end up with one dng and 5-7 derivatives. What would be much better for browsing the library (for me) would be able to stack the dng and derivatives.

Anyway, just trying to explain another reason that I think an improved stacking feature would be worthwhile.