Kelby SLIM method

[shiraz]

I watched the video form Scott Kelby where he explaines his SLIM method to organise all his photos.
Anybody doing it the same way? I was wondering how you organise thousands of family pictures with this method? I think you get collections with large amounts of photos?
The explanation of a travel shoot is clear and a good way to organise your stuff.
But when you almost daily take pictures of your newborn child, you have a problem with his method?

Ex. collection and subcollection

Londen
--- Full Shoot (500 photos)
--- Picks (80 photos)
--- Final selects (30 photos)

 

[Ian.B]

We should have the newbies TOTALLY confused by now
Rob211 has said it very closely to why I don't use the collection idea too much --- mostly I drag year/month folders into a collection so I don't have to go back to library when editing . I try to keep it as simply as possible so that means it ends up completed

 

[Hoggy]

Just for the record, LR6/2015 added the possibility to filter collections - just like the bar on top of the keyword panel. It also added the possibility of using collection and published collection naming criteria in smart collections. But yeah, not in LR5 unfortunately.

I also 2nd Johan's frustration at [smart] collections not allowing stacking. If 1 or more of the stacked photos doesn't meet the smart collection criteria for whatever reason, it should at least display what number out of a stack (ie. "3 of 5") each photo is. In addition, hopefully stacks will be able to cross directory boundaries at some point, as well.

What would also be handy is if whatever changes you were making that invalidated a photo's criteria for inclusion in the smart collection one is in, wouldn't immediately remove the photo. It should wait until you move onto another image to remove it.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

The (other) problem with stacks is that they are location-based rather than image-based. If you stack images in one collection, they will not be stacked in any other collection. You have to repeat it for each collection. That defies Adobe's own logic, because they suggest that stacks are used exactly the way I want to use them: to keep a raw file and its Photoshopped tiff together, or keep an HDR file and the bracketed images together. If that is the purpose of stacking, then stacks should be defined by their image content, not by location. And then of course they should logically also apply in smart collections.

 

[Tony Jay]

The (other) problem with stacks is that they are location-based rather than image-based. If you stack images in one collection, they will not be stacked in any other collection. You have to repeat it for each collection. That defies Adobe's own logic, because they suggest that stacks are used exactly the way I want to use them: to keep a raw file and its Photoshopped tiff together, or keep an HDR file and the bracketed images together. If that is the purpose of stacking, then stacks should be defined by their image content, not by location. And then of course they should logically also apply in smart collections.

Maybe this is really a request worth submitting to Adobe.
I cannot imagine the coding would be too hard to do to solve this.

Tony Jay

 

[Johan Elzenga]

Maybe this is really a request worth submitting to Adobe. I cannot imagine the coding would be too hard to do to solve this.

I did that quite some time ago, but nothing happened. I agree the coding shouldn't be hard. Apple Aperture worked this way from the very first version (that's where Adobe got the idea of stacks in the first place).

 

[Tony Jay]

Ah well...
Maybe it is yet to come...

Tony Jay

 

[johnbeardy]

Apple Aperture worked this way from the very first version (that's where Adobe got the idea of stacks in the first place).

I hope you are joking. The idea comes from good old light tables, and stacking was already in Bridge long before Aperture. As for originality, remember that much of Aperture's UI was actually based on Extensis Portfolio - Apple recruited Aperture's product manager and lead developers directly from Extensis.

While I'm in favour of some kind of smart collection stacking, it's misleading to say Aperture had it. Aperture only had global stacks so stacking in a smart album applied globally, while Lightroom has two independent types of stacking at the folder and collection level.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

OK, maybe Adobe had stacks earlier, but at least Apple understood that a stack of images should be a stack of images no matter where you are. Adobe itself suggests that stacks are to be used to keep images together that 'naturally' belong together, such as a tiff derivative and its raw parent. If that is so, then it doesn't make sense to only stack them in the collection you just happened to be when you send that image to Photoshop. My wife and I were married in the Netherlands, but when we travel abroad we are still married.

I don't understand your last remark. Af far as I can see, Lightroom has only one type of stacking and that is location based. Stack images in a folder, and they won't be stacked in any collection they happen to be in. Stack them in a collection, and they won't be stacked in any other collection, or in their folder, or in 'All Photographs'. Unless I'm missing something, a stack you create only exists at the location you create it and that is the same for folders and collections. No difference I can see. Aperture has also one type of stacking, but that is image-based (and consequently it is indeed 'global'; independent of the location).

Anyway, I believe we had a very lengthy discussion about this somewhere else and some time ago, so let's not repeat that here all over again.

 

[johnbeardy]

Anyway, I believe we had a very lengthy discussion about this somewhere else and some time ago, so let's not repeat that here all over again.

We did, and until your final sentence I was thinking I should reply by pointing that out! It comes down to greater flexibility - why should one be forced to stack images the same way in different contexts?

 

[Johan Elzenga]

We did, and until your final sentence I was thinking I should reply by pointing that out! It comes down to greater flexibility - why should one be forced to stack images the same way in different contexts?

Yes, I think that ideally there should be two types of stacks: global stacks for 'married images' like a raw parent and its tiff derivative or an HDR and its bracketed exposures, and the present local stacks to stack images in a certain context only. Of course that new type of global stack could have a different name to make sure people understand the differences. Unfortunately, Adobe is very 'Develop Module centric' (and 'mobile centric') the last few years. The other modules are getting a very low priority.

 

[johnbeardy]

Yes, though I would question your "the last few years". I actually proposed very similar stack types - way back in 2007.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

Yes, though I would question your "the last few years". I actually proposed very similar stack types - way back in 2007.

:laugh:

 

[tspear]

John, Johan,

Do you have links to the feedback item? I would vote for it. It would be useful, I have an option for auto-stacking HDR/PANO with the generated one.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

There is a request from six years ago: Lightroom: Stacking in folders and collections should be global | Photoshop Family Customer Community

Or this one: Lightroom: Make stacks Really Useful | Photoshop Family Customer Community

Automatic stacking of HDR is also requested: Lightroom: HDR merge should automatically stack with original and move to top of the stack | Photoshop Family Customer Community

So Adobe can't say they didn't know people want this...

 

[PhilBurton]

Ah well...
Maybe it is yet to come...

Tony Jay

This request probably went on "the list" that periodically gets reviewed and (re)prioritized for each planned dot-release of Lightoom CC. My guess is that the priorities are based on their overall strategy and which features seem most important given that strategy. If someone held me down and forced me to guess at their strategy, I would say

• cloud-based rather than system-centric
  
• enable any device that can support a browser and has enough memory and processing power
• which means Adobe is seeking to broaden their base with consumers
• which means that Adobe is less interested right now in workgroups and enterprises
  
• subscription-based revenue model, perhaps with tiered pricing in the future depending on the type and number of screens supported and perhaps without a Photoshop option. (I.e. no LR 7 perpetual license)

... so a cool editing feature which appealed mainly to high-end users, probably not.
... which means significant or any enhancements to Library, probably not.

 

[tspear]

This request probably went on "the list" that periodically gets reviewed and (re)prioritized for each planned dot-release of Lightoom CC. My guess is that the priorities are based on their overall strategy and which features seem most important given that strategy. If someone held me down and forced me to guess at their strategy, I would say

• cloud-based rather than system-centric
  
• enable any device that can support a browser and has enough memory and processing power
• which means Adobe is seeking to broaden their base with consumers
• which means that Adobe is less interested right now in workgroups and enterprises
  
• subscription-based revenue model, perhaps with tiered pricing in the future depending on the type and number of screens supported and perhaps without a Photoshop option. (I.e. no LR 7 perpetual license)

... so a cool editing feature which appealed mainly to high-end users, probably not.
... which means significant or any enhancements to Library, probably not.

Phil,

There shall be NO cold water thrown on my dreams...
But I largely agree, where we diverge is that the library MAY get enhancements. These enhancements would be aimed at making it easier for the novice user, e.g. look at the rather failed import screen rewrite. As such, some items such as HDR stacking may get slipped in.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

It's difficult to say what their priorities are. If I look at Lightroom Mobile and its built-in photo app, then I think "Yes, they are more and more looking at consumers and less and less at professionals". On the other hand, Adobe is nothing without the CC apps and these are mainly professional apps. It would be a huge risk for them to ignore these customers in order to please consumers. And don't forget that professionals tend to pay for what they use, while the average (and especially the young) consumer thinks that everything on the internet should be free.

If you look at Lightroom Desktop, you see relatively new features such as HDR, Panorama, Dehaze, Guided Upright. All features that are not that interesting for snapshooters, but very interesting for more serious photographers. That's why I haven't given up hope yet.

 

[PhilBurton]

It's difficult to say what their priorities are. If I look at Lightroom Mobile and its built-in photo app, then I think "Yes, they are more and more looking at consumers and less and less at professionals". On the other hand, Adobe is nothing without the CC apps and these are mainly professional apps. It would be a huge risk for them to ignore these customers in order to please consumers. And don't forget that professionals tend to pay for what they use, while the average (and especially the young) consumer thinks that everything on the internet should be free.

If you look at Lightroom Desktop, you see relatively new features such as HDR, Panorama, Dehaze, Guided Upright. All features that are not that interesting for snapshooters, but very interesting for more serious photographers. That's why I haven't given up hope yet.

Adobe would not be the first company that tries to straddle the line between consumer mass markets and professionals. The real challenge is not if they can write the code. It's maintaining a brand with two very different audiences. THAT is very hard.

For those in the US: if you want to see a company that has failed to maintain a "split brand," look at Sears. (PM me if you want to discuss.)

Also, I'm not trying to throw cold water on anyone's dreams. I'm just describing my educated guess as to Adobe's process for deciding which feature enhancements and bug fixes to address.

 

[Hoggy]

Oh wow.. I wasn't even aware that stacking was a possibility in regular collections. I only use the smart variety, with about the only exception being to temporarily mirror a smart collection to prevent immediate removal the moment criteria is no longer met. Like Johan, I mostly use stacks to keep together raw and tiff derivatives, and HDR's together with their sources.

However, I could see a use case for both ways of doing it.. So maybe a preference setting of whether to make them global or local to a collection is in order. Or perhaps, such a preference that pertains to global and regular collections, but has smart collection stacks that are global to the folder/'all photographs' (which may be the only way they could be done, when I think about it).

My dream is that this may come with LR7, given that their changes to allow collection name searching and smart collection criteria were added in LR6. But then again, my crystal ball is on the fritz and in need of repair.

They may eventually want to seriously look into diverging the product into a 'lite' version for the average consumer, and a 'pro' version for the the professionals and enthusiastic amateurs such as myself. Or if they want to maintain only one code line, then maybe a preference option to "enable advanced features and preferences".

 

[Tony Jay]

...
They may eventually want to seriously look into diverging the product into a 'lite' version for the average consumer, and a 'pro' version for the the professionals and enthusiastic amateurs such as myself. Or if they want to maintain only one code line, then maybe a preference option to "enable advanced features and preferences".

I happen to think that this would be a very bad idea...

Tony Jay

 

[PhilBurton]

I happen to think that this would be a very bad idea...

Tony Jay

Tony,

Which part of the earlier quote are you referring to? It's easy enough in one codebase to turn features on and off according to the license or subscription. Adobe does that now with LR 6 vs. CC. For everyone not in the IT/software world, "codebase" is the complete set of programming instructions.

 

[Tony Jay]

Hi Phil, just the bit I quoted.

I am well aware of how easy it may be to do from a programming perspective but my concerns are more on a philosophical level.
Currently CC stuff gets incorporated into the next major standalone release.
I would definitely oppose any further trend to "split" this application.
Also, who decides what gets to be in the "pro" versus "amateur" versions.

Please don't use Elements as a template for an argument because Photoshop was originally always more of an application for digital graphic artists and a plausible case could definitely be made for a "lite" version that could be aimed at those only interested in photography.
Lightroom was always an application, designed from the ground up, to be purely for photographers.
I make no distinction between "pros" and "amateurs" as far as needed and useful functionality goes and I really don't think that Adobe should either!

My opinion

Tony Jay

 

[Hoggy]

I would definitely oppose any further trend to "split" this application.
Also, who decides what gets to be in the "pro" versus "amateur" versions.
....
Lightroom was always an application, designed from the ground up, to be purely for photographers.
I make no distinction between "pros" and "amateurs" as far as needed and useful functionality goes and I really don't think that Adobe should either!

You got a point there about further splitting it into lite/pro versioning. However I'm going off their intentions to make it more beginner accessible, given the import dialog fiasco. To that end, they may want to do the 'enable advanced' preference option. Then those of us that might want a choice of different demosaicing algorithms and the like, can get that - whilst not 'cluttering it up' for the beginners.

 

[PhilBurton]

Hi Phil, just the bit I quoted.

I am well aware of how easy it may be to do from a programming perspective but my concerns are more on a philosophical level.
Currently CC stuff gets incorporated into the next major standalone release.
I would definitely oppose any further trend to "split" this application.
Also, who decides what gets to be in the "pro" versus "amateur" versions.

Please don't use Elements as a template for an argument because Photoshop was originally always more of an application for digital graphic artists and a plausible case could definitely be made for a "lite" version that could be aimed at those only interested in photography.
Lightroom was always an application, designed from the ground up, to be purely for photographers.
I make no distinction between "pros" and "amateurs" as far as needed and useful functionality goes and I really don't think that Adobe should either!

My opinion

Tony Jay

Tony,

You raise good issues, and if Adobe is trying a consumer+advanced amateur+professional strategy, then they, are, or should be, grapping with all these issues. (I said nothing about Photoshop Elements.) But it's not just the product. It's also the pricing. How do you ensure that professionals and advanced amateurs don't simply use the consumer service that costs only three dollars a month. And is Adobe smart enough to "segment" the market properly with appropriate ads, etc., for each segment. Ads and messages that are effective for the target segment, but don't "annoy" the other segments. If Adobe talks about one-button simplicity, that could turn off the advanced+professional. The "huge number" of editing tools would scare the daylights out of consumers, etc.

I think it can be done, but it will take time to work all this out. And the issue of an LR 7 might get lost in all the hurly-burly.

Again, I'm not trying to take away anyone's candy, but I am trying to add a perspective here. I could be all wrong. Facebook or Google might buy Adobe with their lunch money. Apple might buy Adobe and drop support for Windows versions of CC. Who knows? I don't.

 

[Tony Jay]

Well Adobe certainly hit a bit of a speed wobble following the launch of Lr 6.x - no question about it.
Hopefully they learn't the lessons to be learn't.

None of us knows exactly how Adobe will play - and if anybody really does then they cannot say (NDA and all that).
Speculation about what Adobe might do is just that - speculation.

My suggestion now (friendly, of course) is that we either get back on track with the original thread topic or terminate this particular thread.
The topic of Adobe's future direction can always be debated on a different sub-forum more suited to topics such as this.

Tony Jay