Stacking in collections

[Clicio Barroso]

Hi, all,

I wish I could be able to use stacks inside collections.
It makes more sense than working in the folders panel only.
My workflow: Shoot a fashion catalog, stack by look (by change of clothing), create one collection for each look.
NOW I wanted to stack each look, dividing them into close-ups, full-bodies, details, etc.
But I can?t.
Frustrating!

:evil:
Clicio Barroso
**********

 

[SteveF]

Hello,

I've found this frustrating as well.

It shouldn't matter where one is in LR - if you want to stack two photos that are next to each other on the screen (in whatever module, collection, etc) LR should work around the problem, and not the user.

 

[Kiwigeoff]

Ok, but how would you stack two photos if one is online and one off on different drives?
The purpose of folders and collections is different. Folders store image files etc, whereas collections don't. This is one of the reasons to have different functionalities I believe.
Make sense???

 

[renevg]

Ok, but how would you stack two photos if one is online and one off on different drives?
The purpose of folders and collections is different. Folders store image files etc, whereas collections don't. This is one of the reasons to have different functionalities I believe.
Make sense???

I'm sorry but I agree wit SteveF and Clicio; it should be possible in collections.
It doesn't matter if the files are offline. In collections, like in folders, it should be possible to change the order of the stack, add and delete keywords, change metadata or whatever you want to do. I don't see a reason why that's not possible. The data will be updated next time the files are online again.

Renevg

 

[someothername]

Ok, but how would you stack two photos if one is online and one off on different drives?
The purpose of folders and collections is different. Folders store image files etc, whereas collections don't. This is one of the reasons to have different functionalities I believe.
Make sense???

If you try to stack to photos showing up in a parent folder when one is in a child, you get a message saying you can't stack photos in different folders.

However, I very much agree that in a collection you ought to be able to stack to your heart's content, regardless of the actual location of the photo. It strikes me that a collection is a way of gathering together photos for a specific purpose. Once you've put them in the collection, you have for your purposes created a virtual folder with virtual images in it. Changes to the images will go back to the original location xmp or to the catalog or both, but other than that you should have complete freedom to do in this virtual folder what you would do in a regular folder.

Hmmm, now that I'm thinking about it, what I'd really like is a physical folder created by Lightroom somewhere for each collection that contains the xmp for the photos in that collection so I can apply changes to stuff in the collection without impacting the xmp associated with the parent photo. This would enable me to have and save multiple versions of a photo, something I can only do now by exporting a physical copy somewhere and working on it in the new location.

 

[DonRicklin]

Hmmm, now that I'm thinking about it, what I'd really like is a physical folder created by Lightroom somewhere for each collection that contains the xmp for the photos in that collection so I can apply changes to stuff in the collection without impacting the xmp associated with the parent photo. This would enable me to have and save multiple versions of a photo, something I can only do now by exporting a physical copy somewhere and working on it in the new location.

You can do this know y having the images in ths COllections be VCs (Virtual Copies) of the images. The the VCs can vhave different develop and Metadata than the Masters.

Don

 

[someothername]

You can do this know y having the images in ths COllections be VCs (Virtual Copies) of the images. The the VCs can vhave different develop and Metadata than the Masters.

Don

Thanks, that works pretty slick. Somewhere along my learning I got the impression that virtual copies only existed for the current run of the program.

This is a powerful feature, though I will admit a bit of worry since if the db becomes lost or corrupt, I'd lose the information about the development and metadata of these virtual copies.

It seems a little "+" symbol is stuck after a keyword applied to a virtual copy in the keyword list. But only if it only exists for the VC.

 

[Brad Snyder]

It seems a little "+" symbol is stuck after a keyword applied to a virtual copy in the keyword list. But only if it only exists for the VC.

Say that again, Brandon? Perhaps I've completely misunderstood your reference, but the + sign suffix I'm thinking of in the Keyword List indicates the keyword currently assigned to the keyword shortcut key, or the Paint tool. If it has something to do with VC's, I've definitely missed the boat somewhere.

 

[someothername]

Say that again, Brandon? Perhaps I've completely misunderstood your reference, but the + sign suffix I'm thinking of in the Keyword List indicates the keyword currently assigned to the keyword shortcut key, or the Paint tool. If it has something to do with VC's, I've definitely missed the boat somewhere.

No, I missed the boat. I'd never seen it before. I'd copied the VC into a collection, then applied "color pop" to one of them (by typing in the keyword box) and used the paint tool to hit the others. Then I scrolled down the keyword list hunting for the new keyword I'd put there so I could edit it as non-exportable, and that's when I saw the + suffix. Hovering didn't tell me what it was, so I associated with the last big thing I'd done, which was assign keywords to VC's. :|

 

[Brad Snyder]

Yeah, I don't think I ever figured it out on my own either. I'm sure I read it somewhere before I understood it.

 

[drsPIX]

Stacking, Collections, and Virtual Copies

I too miss not being able to stack in collections, as I "work" in collections, whereas I use folders only to store by date shot.

However, the replies were informative... Should I be using VIRTUAL copies in my collections instead of the pointers to the original files?

Other questions then arise: What 'flows thru' a virtual copy to the original? Can I keyword copies? What about flags?

Some experimentation is in order.

 

[Mark Sirota]

Welcome to Lightroom Forums, drsPIX.

I What 'flows thru' a virtual copy to the original? Can I keyword copies? What about flags?

Everything done before the virtual copy is made flows from original to copy.
Everything done to the copy afterwards does not affect the original (but you can Sync or Copy/Paste, just like between any two photos).

 

[andersl]

However, the replies were informative... Should I be using VIRTUAL copies in my collections instead of the pointers to the original files?

It depends on what you want to do with the photos, but in general no. It's better to simply include the photos.

However, in some situations a virtual copy is a good thing, for example if you plan to change all photos in the collection, e.g. by converting them to black and white.

 

[Brad Snyder]

I agree with andersl. I tend to use VC/collection combinations, where every photo in the collection gets some sort of identical / similar 'treatment'. My most frequent need is for crops in differing aspect ratios. Here, the ability to create a collection, and include the selected photos, as VCs, in a single step is a big help.

 

[Mark Sirota]

Here, the ability to create a collection, and include the selected photos, as VCs, in a single step is a big help.

FYI, I do that too. I've submitted a feature request for the ability to assign a copy name too, in that same single step.

If you agree that would be useful, please submit a similar request...

 

[Brad Snyder]

Done.