Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Can Lightroom sort by dimensions?

Apr 17, 2013 7:43 AM

I'd like to either use Grid view sorted by dimensions, or create a Collection based on dimensions.  I can do this in Adobe Bridge, but thought Lightroom would add functionality to this. But I can't find it.

Thank you.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 17, 2013 8:08 AM   in reply to milesoneway

    This functionality for Smart Collections was added in Lightroom 5. You can check out the Public Beta for details.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 17, 2013 8:08 AM   in reply to milesoneway

    Lr 4.4 doesn't have that.

    But in Lr 5 beta is a new feature: you can create Smart Collections based on Size / Dimensions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 12:27 PM   in reply to web-weaver

    I have LR 5 and do not see this anywhere; did this not get released?   If so is there some kind of how-to?

     

    Update: ok I found in smart collection but was surprised to see I can't do this in standard sort/filter in grid view.  Weird.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 12:43 PM   in reply to photoshack

    See if this helps. Technically, a smart collection is not "sorting" your photos, it is filtering your photos which is different.

     

    2013-09-07 15_40_54-Edit Smart Collection.gif

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 2:42 PM   in reply to dj_paige

    Thanks; yes I did create a smart collection that works; would like to be able to sort in any directory by file size though, or filter within a range at any given folder.  Older tools like Thumbs Plus used to do this...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 2:53 PM   in reply to photoshack

    I'm pretty sure LR does not sort or filter by file size.

     

    The plug-in from Jeffrey Frield named "Data Explorer" will filter by file size.

     

    I'm curious why you would want to sort or filter by file size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 3:51 PM   in reply to dj_paige

    Often I need to have a file size smaller than X with other criteria for various web publications.  Has happened enough to where I am ticked off whenever it comes up.  The smart collection is a good enough workaround, I just have to create a new smart collection for the criteria.  I have the plugin but it isn't convenient either (and every upgrade breaks it.)   My scenario today was <2m, at least 1000 px height with keywords ocean.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 7, 2013 4:10 PM   in reply to photoshack

    If you were talking about photo size in pixels, I would say "Yes, I understand"

     

    But you seem to be saying file size, not pixel size, and I have never run into a situation where I needed a specific file size, which is why I asked. File sizes are easily manipulated, and with a given photo, you can probably create just about any reasonable file size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 8, 2013 8:41 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    Personally, I think your looking at this bass-ackwards. If you want to select specific image types for website use I'd suggest first searching by keyword criteria such as 'ocean.' Then select the ones you think are best regardless of size. If they aren't the right size then simply Export them and create the size you want. Why the heck would you want to "limit" your selection of images by "size?" It simply makes no sense, especially when hard drive storage is dirt cheap today–Just my 2 cents worth!

     

    This table may give you a better idea of JPEG file sizes based on LR's compression settings 0-100. In case you weren't aware there are really only 13 different compression levels in both LR and PS and one of them is virtually useless (54-61%). See this post:

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/5641903#5641903

     

    The file used for comparison is from a 5D MKII, but the compression 'Size' and 'Step' data applies to most any "typical" image type.

     

    PSLRLR EquivSizeSize %Step %
    0   00-7%      675 5%-11%
    1  108-15%      756 5%-23%
    2  2016-23%      983 7%-14%
    3  3024-30%   1,137 8%-14%
    4   3531-38%   1,318 9%-16%
    5  4039-46%   1,569 11%-24%
    6  5047-53%   2,051 14%-4%
    7  5554-61%   2,127 15%-27%
    8  6562-69%   2,894 20%-25%
    9  7070-76%   3,863 26%-31%
    10  8077-84%   5,570 38%-35%
    11  9085-92%   8,566 59%-41%
    1210093-100%14,579 100%

    Notice the anomaly between PS 6-7 steps. There's more information at the above link.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 7:31 AM   in reply to trshaner

    I would like to be able to sort by size.  I am collecting images from various sources, and i want to use the four best of each group.  While artistic merit is slightly involved, i most want the pictures to be clear and good quality.  in general, bigger size means less pixelation.  I cant just pick the four biggest because that isnt always true, so i want to look at the pictures starting with the largest size pictures.  As far as i can see lightroom doesnt let me do this.

    another reason for sorting by size is when you have thumbnails mixed in with the originals.  an easy way to segregate the thumbnails would be to sort by size

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 7:54 AM   in reply to nahcr

    Nahcr: what "size" are you referring to, image size in pixels, or file size in megabytes, or something else?

     

    Unless your answer is "something else", this has all been discussed earlier in the thread. Lightroom will filter (not sort) by megapixels (as shown in reply 4). You can use a plug-in to filter (not sort) by file size (mentioned in reply 6), which in my mind is a totally meaningless thing to do (as explained by trshaner in reply 9), and does not get you to "bigger size means less pixelation".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 7:59 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    I am collecting creative commons pictures from a variety of sources, chiefly thru flick  for an online pictorial dictionary for a nonprofit project.  as i said, larger size such as 21 mp vs 1 mp generally although not always equates to better quality. furthermore i need to crop most of the pictures i select, and again, trying to crop a .5 mp picture generally results in extreme pixelation.  in selecting the 4 best pictures for the project for each item, it would be helpful if i could start by organize the pictures by megapixels.  i dont want filtering, i want sorting, because in some cases, the smaller size picture is still the better choice.

    my purpose in responding to this thread is to point out that there are times when sorting by size makes sense.

    Obviously, if you start with the original photo and it is from a recent camera, then size can be manipulated. but if you are starting from degraded material, as in my case, then the size of the material does make a difference.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 9:02 AM   in reply to nahcr

    Since the request if for sorting by megapixels, and not filtering, then I do not think Lightroom has that capability; nor am I aware of any plug-ins that allow sorting (not filtering) by megapixels.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 9:03 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    The Data Explorer plugin sorts and groups by many different metadata dimensions, including megapixels:

     

    http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-explorer

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 9:13 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    Adobe Bridge supports "sorting" by numerous parameters. It is a true sort NOT just a filter. You can also view the selected files as Thumbnails, Details, or List.

     

    Sort By Dimensions.jpg

    Even the freeware application XnView provides this capability. You could use it to sort 'By Dimensions,' select your best images, and then Edit IPTC Data (CTRL+I) to flag the selected picks. Select ALL of the images in LR, go to toolbar Metadata> 'Read Metadata from File,' which will update LR with the XnView IPTC Data added. Use the LR Filter toolbar 'Text' or Attribute' to isolate the "picks" you flagged in XnView.

     

    It's a shame the same sort capability can't be implemented native to LR or with a plugin!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 9:22 AM   in reply to John R. Ellis

    John R. Ellis wrote:

     

    The Data Explorer plugin sorts and groups by many different metadata dimensions, including megapixels:

     

    http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-explorer

    I don't see where Data Explorer does a sort by megapixels ... it clearly does a filter, but not a sort by megapixels; nor does Jeffrey appear to claim it does a sort in his web page documentation.

     

    Even the plug-in called MegaPixel Sort clearly states "You can't actually sort via megapixel size, even using this plugin"

    
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 9:27 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    ListView sorts by any metadata field, including dimensions and file size.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 11:51 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    Data Explorer buckets the photos into collections sorted by the selected criterion.  For the use cases described in this thread, this allows the user to quickly explore selected photos in sorted order.   For example, here are the ordered collections produced by Data Explorer for the criterion "megapixels":

     

    Capture.PNG

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 12:02 PM   in reply to milesoneway

    While it is nice that everyone comes up with complex ways to do a simple task like sorting by file size criteria, I think that it is worthy of considering to actually put this in the product that we are using daily to manage our digital media.   I do not want to go outside of LR to work on images; I want to do this in one place.   I do not want to have plugins to do a basic simple function.  I want to sort, filter on this information and then ACT upon it within the interface.

     

    I will go back again to my use case.

     

    I want to find all image with keyword ocean, sorted by file size because I know that my library has a combination of print prepped work, raw files, virtual copies, websized, and intermediate sized files and I want to filter on JPG >2mb but <5mb, regardless of dimensions.  I want to sort them in descending order and compare within grid view and then act upon them.

     

    All these tools mentioned as work arounds just muck up what should be very easy.   Good for plugin developers and all...but really I don't get why this can't be simply another metadata used to sort like all the rest.   Excusing them away with costly tools is stupid.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 12:09 PM   in reply to photoshack

    While it is nice that everyone comes up with complex ways to do a simple task like sorting by file size criteria, I think that it is worthy of considering to actually put this in the product that we are using daily to manage our digital media.   I do not want to go outside of LR to work on images; I want to do this in one place.   I do not want to have plugins to do a basic simple function.

    All these tools mentioned as work arounds just muck up what should be very easy.   Good for plugin developers and all...but really I don't get why this can't be simply another metadata used to sort like all the rest.   Excusing them away with costly tools is stupid.

     

    I understand your point of view, and I can see the value of this feature, but if the Lightroom developers stopped what they were doing and programmed up everyone's requested favorite feature, we wouldn't see another version of Lightroom for years. Like it or not, this feature, and many many others, has not been a priority. If you'd really like to have an impact, and potentially get this feature inside of Lightroom, you should make a formal request at http://feedback.photoshop.com/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 12:12 PM   in reply to photoshack

    I don't think anyone in this thread intended to "excuse away" the lack of the sort feature -- we're just trying to help people get their work done with the tools that are currently available. 

     

    Adobe doesn't pay much attention to this thread.  They do, however, pay attention to the official feedback forum:

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_fami ly_photoshop_lightroom

     

    That's the best place to provide feature suggestions and product feedback.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 12:13 PM   in reply to photoshack

    photoshack wrote:

     

    I will go back again to my use case.

     

    I want to find all image with keyword ocean, sorted by file size because I know that my library has a combination of print prepped work, raw files, virtual copies, websized, and intermediate sized files and I want to filter on JPG >2mb but <5mb, regardless of dimensions.  I want to sort them in descending order and compare within grid view and then act upon them.

     

    The problem, I fear, is a difference in philosphy.

     

    Many of us do not keep 'derivitive files' (e.g. for web, for print, for this, for that).  One of the beauties of Lightroom is that the need for and storage of derivitive files long-term is mitigated.

     

    In the dozens of workflows I have consulted on in recent months no one has lamented this ommission. Why? Because Lightroom allows us to abandon this type of management in favor of something simpler.

     

    Just my opinion of course. If you are adamant about it, go to the official feature request forum and post it and hope that it gets Adobe's attention.

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/products/photoshop_fami ly_photoshop_lightroom

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 5:45 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    My workaround for numerous LR shortcomings like this is to simply work with Adobe Bridge, PS and LR all open. The workflow is not as cumbersome as it sounds and Bridge let's me find and catalog ALL my digital assets, not just Raw, JPEG, TIFF and Ping file types. Metadata changes made in Bridge can be updated in the LR catalog to keep track of and use them their as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 7:51 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    I see your point; I guess if you did not use LR to manage anything other than RAW files that would not be a feature you would concern yourself with.  I didn't want to use four or five softwares to manage all images.   If every lightroom user is content with using multiple software then there is no demand.   I hardly ever need photoshop anymore because of LR's improved features.  It would take very little to make LR "perfect"....perhaps make bridge have LR features would be the next evolution.  Also, I do manage video in LR as well (limited but good enough.)

     

    Any how, thanks for playing all...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 5:05 AM   in reply to photoshack

    Did anyone try johnbeardy's ListView plugin?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 5:10 AM   in reply to trshaner

    trshaner wrote:

     

    Did anyone try johnbeardy's ListView plugin?

     

    It will still have the alphanumeric sorting issue because Lightroom supplies the size data as text, but it's one click out to Excel and 3 or 4 keystrokes to convert the text to numbers. You can then sort and analyse to your heart's content.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 6:43 AM   in reply to john beardsworth

    Thanks John. I used to do sales tracking using Excel and the numerical data fields pulled in from the company's database program always had to be converted from text to numbers to do numerical sorts. So the issue is that the LR catalog database fields are text items, which can't be sorted numerically internal to LR.

     

    Adobe Bridge is not a relational database application so numerical fields can be correctly sorted, but there are serious speed tradeoffs when sorting on a large number of image files.

     

    http://thelightroomlab.com/2010/02/adobe-photoshop-lightroom-vs-the-ad obe-bridge/

     

    So we still don't have an Adobe application or plugin that can do "numerical sorts" on a large number of image files in a reasonable amount of time. I'm sure SQLite has the capability!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 7:31 AM   in reply to trshaner

    Well, one way Lightroom supplies information to plugins is formatted as it appears in the UI, "10.5 MB" for example. So should the plugin strip out the formatting (in every language including Asian ones?), which may help sorting but then not correspond to the main LR UI? Can other fields be used - sometimes. Or strip out the formatting before sorting? Maybe that's the way I'll go, possibly on a field by field basis, but it's not as if there's great demand for it - and those who might want it are probably the types who love to dump all the data into Excel and swing it all around in pivot tables.

     

    PS looking at the docs, LR offers fileSize as "formatted" and "raw". I'm currently using the former, but I may switch to the latter.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points