Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

We need sticky filters for folders and collections back!

Jun 14, 2010 5:18 AM

i opened this new discussion because the old one was marked as answered. its not answered at all!

 

we need sticky filters back. its absolutely frustrating having to change the filters back over and over again.

 

there are collections where i want flagged photos to appear most of the time.

there are collections where i want flagged and starred photos to appear most of the time.

 

i just want lightroom to save these settings per collection and i dont want to have to make multiple smart-collections just to have these various filters saved.

 

im not asking for anything impossible. it was already there in lightroom 1&2.

 

adobe, please fix this regression fast! let us choose!

 

thank you.

 
Replies 1 2 3 ... 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 9:23 AM   in reply to HolgerMC

    I for one never liked the sticky filters.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 9:38 AM   in reply to CanonRAW_Shooter

    That's why we need a preference for this.


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 11:19 AM   in reply to HolgerMC

    We're hearing the feedback.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:01 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    I thought it was busted/bug/operator error, didnt think for a moment it would be by design. I thought you were supposed to get more when you upgraded not less.

     

    H

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:21 PM   in reply to _H_

    Beta 2 didn't do this

    After all the consultation with us why change something so fundamental without at least involving the people who were trying to help with Lr3 B2

    I can see why one might like the new system but I can also see that some, myself included, prefer the old system.

    An option seems to be the best choice.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:27 PM   in reply to SnapperRT

    SnapperRT wrote:

     

    Beta 2 didn't do this

     

     

     

    Beta 2 did and from memory beta 1 also.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:34 PM   in reply to CanonRAW_Shooter

    CanonRAW_Shooter wrote:

     

    I for one never liked the sticky filters.

    + 1. Couldn't care less about them, to be honest.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:38 PM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    Ian Lyons wrote:


    ...and from memory beta 1 also.

    That is correct.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:52 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I owe apologies beta 2 does not retain the selection.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 1:57 PM   in reply to SnapperRT

    Hey - no fair changing your message in mid-reply!

     

    +1 vote to support both - preferrably on the fly, as opposed to a fixed preference.

     

    Lr3.1 !!!

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 2:04 PM   in reply to SnapperRT

    Losing your selection is a bug (or at least, not part of the conscious

    design)

     

    Losing sticky filters was a design choice for 3.0, and happened before beta

    1.

     

    -melissa

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 2:08 PM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    Thanks for the answer.

    But do you intend to reinstate it or give users an option?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 16, 2010 2:28 PM   in reply to SnapperRT

    We're still discussing what to do.

    -melissa

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 8:21 AM   in reply to HolgerMC

    I for one find this super frustuating and have never heard about "Sticky Filters" untill it was no longer there. I have waisted hours upon hours trying to fix what I thought was broken.

     

    I am a wedding photographer and shoot sometimes 10,000 photos per wedding then filter them by ratings but might select 1,000 images. I have deleloped my workflow around this "Sticky Filter" feature.  Not having this feautre has now seriously increased the amount of time it takes me to edit out pictures once I have to refine down my selections by removing stars. And in some ways this has hampered my ability to do so effectivly becuase I get distracted by having to figure out which filters I had turned one and loose focus on the images. Which is what LR is suposed to be about, the images.

     

    I have figured out a workflow around this.

    1) Import all my images in LR2 to refine my selection of images. Using "Sticky Filters"

    2) Import that catalog into LR3 to Color Correct my final selections. But the noise feature is then set to 2003 instead of 2010.

     

    ADOBE - Please fix this so I am not wasiting hours with work arounds to your new ideas of how you think people edit when they have been editing with your old software for years now and have build workflow models around them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 8:49 AM   in reply to PeteRed27

    Over-reliance on the filter panel is often a result of not making sufficient use of smart or dumb collections, and often filter presets too. Look at these features and the new lock - you shouldn't have to use LR2 any longer.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 9:26 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    Over-reliance on the filter panel is often a result of not making sufficient use of smart or dumb collections, and often filter presets too. Look at these features and the new lock - you shouldn't have to use LR2 any longer.

     

    Under-reliance on the filter panel is often a result of over-using smart and dumb collections.  ;-)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 9:27 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    +1000 to bring it back.

     

    Mellisa,

     

    Whats to discuss?

     

    Proffesional photographers needs and use this feature, it was a given in V1 and 2 but now we have to fight for it.

    Changing it seems like a weird decision to me.

     

    Regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 9:35 AM   in reply to Lee Jay-ZyZk56

    Or of using it for what it's designed for...

     

    As a curiosity, Lee Jay, have you got many filter panel presets? I suspect that the more you use the panel the way I do, the more presets one has.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 9:56 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    John, one of my concerns is that when I import new images, I always 

    have to remember to turn off filters. Otherwise, the filter I was 

    using previously may prevent the new images from showing up.

     

    Do you have a suggestion for avoiding this?

     

    Eric

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 9:59 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    MelissaJ.G. wrote:

     

    We're still discussing what to do.

    -melissa

     

    The best of all possible solutions would be to give the end-user the choice of "sticky" or not.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 10:14 AM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Bob_Peters wrote:

    The best of all possible solutions would be to give the end-user the choice of "sticky" or not.

     

    Yes ... I have choices for many functions, settings, etc.  within LR to fine-tune the app to my workflow ... this is one function that I think would best serve all users as a preference for which style of behavior individuals prefer to work with instead of an arbitrary implementation ... as I am one user who did not think the prior behavior was wrong .....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 10:14 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    johnbeardy wrote:

     

    Or of using it for what it's designed for...

     

    As a curiosity, Lee Jay, have you got many filter panel presets? I suspect that the more you use the panel the way I do, the more presets one has.

     

    John

     

    Nope.  Not that helpful as I still have to remember what presets apply to what folders.  If I could remember that, I wouldn't need sticky filtering as much, but it would still be helpful as it would be applied automatically rather than manually.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 10:40 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    As part of this discussion, please look at the larger recurring issue, which is removing or changing significantly the operation of existing LR features.

     

    This didn't matter as much when LR was pretty new, but many of us have now invested a great deal of time and thought in establishing our LR workflow.  This workflow can be significantly different from one user to the next.  There is no one right way for a feature to operate, so what may be an improvement for some, may be a critical loss of functionality for others.

     

    In respect of the now well-established user base, I would suggest that any feature changes like this should be implemented with a user option that retains as much of the existing functionality as is technically feasible.

     

    Paul Wasserman

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 10:51 AM   in reply to Melissa Gaul

    MelissaJ.G. wrote:

     

    We're still discussing what to do.

    -melissa

    This is the sort of behaviour that 50% of people love and 50% hate and why this sort of behaviour should always be optional and adaptable.

     

    The more things you can make user preferable/optional/adjustable, the more time the designers/coders can spend on the programme itself, rather than waste time debating about which group of people will be the least annoyed by a change/new feature/position in UI.However you layout/design any software, it won't suit all customer's needs, but locking down and reducing options always makes for fewer people pleased than could be the case.

    For example - Shortcuts keys should always be user customisable, as then you can match keys to the programmes and tools within -  that you actually use - everyone ahs a slightly difference range of software used and then the different tools within. I overwrite many already taken shortcuts in PS with my own favourite tools as I never use the tool/menu item/action etc they are currently assigned to. Makes me far more productive.

     

    Auto increment on Batch Renaming being another example of where the choice to do so or not should be up to the user. Auto-increment [in Br] drives me nuts most of the time, but I can how useful it would be for say event photographers and also for some jobs I do.

    Br auto increments and LR resets to 1, but Br can batch rename RAW + JPEGS together and LR cannot, so both are less than optimal for my needs. Remembering to reset to one in Br is much faster than having to select and rename files twice in LR, so I tend to use Br for that task.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 11:00 AM   in reply to HolgerMC

    Yes, another vote for restoring this feature. I had thought there was a bug until reading this thread.  A preference option would be a fine solution.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 12:12 PM   in reply to Matulaitis

    I've registered my complaint over the loss of sticky filters elsewhere, but I will do so again here.  I love all of the improvements that have come with LR3, but the loss of folder-based filter options has seriously messed up my workflow and has caused a lot of extra steps.  In one case, I failed to send a client one of their images due to this.  Please bring it back in 3.1.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 12:45 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Hi Eric.  Making the behavior optional should keep everyone happy.  Those who liked them being sticky (and yes, sometimes I forgot too) and those who didn't. 

     

    Perhaps there are some other options that would be useful, such as reset on import and making them sticky just within a single LR session.

     

    Please make everything optional in order to suit everyone's preferences and not affect (previously) established workflows.

     

    Thanks,

     

    Selby

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 2:19 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Eric, I tend to switch on the lock for periods when it is needed, so do not hit that problem. I don't see filtering as a useful default state, any more than it is in Mail or Finder, and certainly not when I go back to a folder x months later and don't see the images I expected.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 5:29 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    Whilst we are on the subject of filtering, why not make the the filter panel more like Bridge's excellent adaptive filter panel, which LR's panel seems like a poor imitation of? The filter presets in LR seem like a way of coping with a rather poor fundamental design. Filtering files seems so easy in Br and sadly so clunky in LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 7:10 PM   in reply to john beardsworth

    That's all well and good John, but I like to have different filters based upon client's needs .... if the client requests CMYK, RGB, needs 170 ppi vs 300 ppi ... the filters I use on individual shoots come in very handy ... my workflow should be able to be customized to my standards and not to any perceived standard that is popular to anyone else ....

     

    For three years ... or more  if you consider the original beta of LR .... To have a behavior as important as folder  filtering changed arbitrarily without notice .... is a step backwards ... not forward .....

     

    Just my humble opinion .....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2010 11:21 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    Then use collections, Butch - sets, smart and dumb. They can permit much more sophisticated filtering of your work than the filter panel, alternatives filterings can be placed side by side, you can name them 5x7" or CMYK output, you can easily mix smart and manually-compiled collections, and each collection remembers its print, sldieshow and web output settings. The filter panel is a tool that is suitable primarily for finding and filtering (like iTunes' columns), and over-relying on it for organisation is always going to be weaker than using tools like collections which are specifically designed for organisation.

     

    I'd also counter by saying to have a problem fixed after 3 years is very pleasing. Remember the improvement was visible throughout betas 1 and 2.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 1:22 AM   in reply to imajez

    imajez wrote:

     

    Whilst we are on the subject of filtering, why not make the the filter panel more like Bridge's excellent adaptive filter panel, which LR's panel seems like a poor imitation of? The filter presets in LR seem like a way of coping with a rather poor fundamental design. Filtering files seems so easy in Br and sadly so clunky in LR.

     

    The planned feature set for Lr3 library did not envisage significant changes to the organisational, search and filter systems, at least not at a user level. Nevertheless, what you suggest has been requested by some of us on many occasions. In fact, it has been speced/mocked up by some of us to the point were it would go a very long way to addressing the fundamental shortcomings that are at the core of this and pretty much every other discussion about Lightroom's organisational searching and filtering capabilities since the very first day it was shown. That being said, this discussion has unfortunately focussed on the Metadata filter panel.

     

    The metadata filter panel is not and never has been intended as a "long term" organisational tool. The fact that it was able to be used as one with Lr2 meant that many users did not fully investigate the power of smart and dumb collections or just found it a much quicker easier method of achieving their goals, even though it was inherently flawed*. Those who did take the time to better understand what could be done within collections panel often found the old behaviour in the metadata filter panel to be a workflow obstacle rather than a help. It's unfortunate that the change introduced in Lr3 doesn't suit everybody, but the solution being put forward in this and other threads  (user preference should be introduced so that folk can go with the old or new way) simply delays the inevitable. That is, at some point Adobe will get round to addressing the underlying organisational weaknesses, which will again leave those dependent on "sticky" filtering having to adapt.

     

    I don't doubt that the change in behaviour has hurt many users, but as John and others have already stated. Much of what they need is already available, albeit clunky and not nearly as intuitive as it should be.

     

     

    * localised sticky "filtering" being used a medium to long term organisational tool

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 7:05 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    I don't see why sticky filtering is "flawed" as an organizational tool while smart collections are not.  They are the same thing except that smart collections are not capable of being tied to a folder while filters are.

     

    For me, collections are a flawed organizational tool, primarily because they are not visible from the myriad of other applications I use to access my images besides LR.  Having my primary organizational approach accessible from only one of a dozen tools isn't particularly useful and it is very confusing to see different methods of organizing the same data in different tools.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 7:25 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    I doubt that either smart or dumb collections can replace my usual folder+filter organizational workflow. Let's give it a try:

     

    I use folders to organize my shoots. I rarely have more than one per day, so an automatically generated year/month/day folder structure serves my needs just fine - the photos are already ordered my date on import, and the only manual thing I have to do is to change the name of the lowest folder from simply a date to something more recognizable (i.e., "02 - Red dress").

     

    Now, where does filtering come in? I rate my photos with stars (most of you people do, I guess) to - precisely - filter out those that are less than OK. I.e., I set my filter to display photos with 3+ stars. Now whenever I selected a folder (a shoot) in LR2 I had the inferior photos filtered. Because LR2 used sticky filters for folders. Just as I wanted.

     

    But you're telling me it's time to stop fiddling with filters and switch to collections. Please, enlighten me as to the particulars of achieving my simple aims described above with the help of collections! I'm feeling really open-minded and grateful. Please, do!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 7:43 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    Once again, your 'Fix' is my broken application.  I'm glad you've got a workflow that works for you, but I've got a different workflow that works for me, and no matter how much you might argue the superiority of one over the other, neither one of them is right or wrong.

     

    Collections work for you and that's great.  Collections don't work as well for me because I don't want to have to scroll through hundreds of collections on top of the hundreds of folders I already have.  Collections themselves have real limitations for me until they are fully implemented with the ability to delete and stack while in the collection.  I can easily nest folders and sub-folders any way I want, whereas Collection Sets are really cumbersome (broken since LR1 IMHO).

     

    Even if collections get 'fixed' from my point of view, or some major organizational restructuring takes place, I still don't necessarily want to have to create a collection or other permanent item if I can use a temporary filter or preset to do what I want and turn it off when I'm done.  Since I don't always have time to finish what I'm doing in one LR session, let alone in the same week, I want those filters to stay set until I choose otherwise.

     

    But again, that's me.  If that's not useful to you that's fine, but Adobe shouldn't be breaking what works for me to 'fix' you, or vice-versa.

     

    Paul Wasserman

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 8:05 AM   in reply to Elenhil

    Elenhil wrote:

     

    I doubt that either smart or dumb collections can replace my usual folder+filter organizational workflow. Let's give it a try:

     

     

     

    At it's simplest level - create a smart collection that excludes the images with less than X stars or doesn't have label Y or whatever you want as the criteria.  This creates a global smart collection of all images that meet the criteria defined in the smart collection. To make the smart collection operate at local level select the appropriate folder then Cmd/Ctrl click the a smart collection that matches what you want to filter. Remember, using Cmd/Ctrl to select across folders and collections is an AND function.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 7:51 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    Ian Lyons wrote:

     

    At it's simplest level - create a smart collection that excludes the images with less than X stars or doesn't have label Y or whatever you want as the criteria.  This creates a global smart collection of all images that meet the criteria defined in the smart collection. To make the smart collection operate at local level select the appropriate folder then Cmd/Ctrl click the a smart collection that matches what you want to filter. Remember, using Cmd/Ctrl to select across folders and collections is an AND function.

     

    How does that help to remember which filter applies to which folder?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2010 7:55 AM   in reply to Ian Lyons

    One could also add a criterion "Folder / Contains / MyFolderName" to tie a smart collection to a folder (or series of folders).

     

    Look up my Workflow Smart Collections for an example of a more elaborate filtering system.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 ... 5 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)