Quick Lightroom tip

[Dmitri]

If you're like me, sometimes you forget to put imported photos in a collection and they are seemingly lost to the world. Since Lightroom doesn't have a handy "not in a collection" feature yet, here is a little Smart Collection I devised to easily find photos not in a collection:

Create a Smart Collection, and make one rule for it:
Collection - Doesn't Contain - "a,e,i,o,u,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0" (without quotes)

Then, unless you have some really bizarrely named collections, your new smart collection will have all your limbo pics!:thumbup:

 

[Robin Usagani]

L

 

[Robin Usagani]

Lol... Here is how man. Select all of your collections, then click select invert. DONE!

 

[Dmitri]

Lol... Here is how man. Select all of your collections, then click select invert. DONE!

Except that doesn't work so well. For one, you have to expand all collections and sub-collections, you have to exclude all your smart collections, and then when you invert you can only do pretty much one thing before having to go through it all again.

Or one can just click the smart collection and there they are.

The way you say to do it is an old work-around and a very poor way to accomplish a task that Adobe should have included to begin with.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Expand? There is a checklist to include all sub folders

 

[Big Mike]

Most of my photos aren't in collections. I only use collections when I have a specific need for them.

 

[Dmitri]

Expand? There is a checklist to include all sub folders

lol. That's fine man. I'm a set it and forget it kind of guy. I prefer to have my wheels inflated when I want to drive somewhere, and not have to re-inflate them every morning and everytime my truck stops. To each their own. though

Most of my photos aren't in collections. I only use collections when I have a specific need for them.

Really? hmm I find collections are a great way to categorize photos.

 

[Big Mike]

Really? hmm I find collections are a great way to categorize photos.

Yes, they are...but I don't use them to the extent that if photos aren't in a collection, they would be lost or hidden.

Firstly, I use multiple catalogs. So I have one for weddings, one for portraits, one for personal & landscape and another on for the P&S camera. I never need to see any of those photos at the same time, so I don't need to have them in the same catalog (you can only have one catalog open at a time).

Within each catalog, LR uses the same file structure as where the images are stored. I have that set up with folders for year, then folders for the date of each shoot or upload. So it doesn't take me long to find something if I know roughly when it was taken.
On top of that, I try to keyword my images. I usually don't do it right away, but later I may come back and add a few keywords to all my images. So in theory, and keyword can be used to retrieve images, just as if they were in a collection.

I also use flag, star and sometimes color ratings for specific things...and with the filter options, it's another way to find or group certain images.

I still do use collections. For example, when I first go through a shoot, I flag the good ones (black flag the tossers). Once I'm content with the group of flagged images, I take them and put them into a collection for further editing. That might only be 20% of the total photos from the shoot, so that leave a lot of photos that are not in a collection....but I may still want to go back to them someday. I really only use the collections for the group of images that I'm working on at the time.

 

[Dmitri]

That's one of the really wonderful things about Lightroom, there are so many options for people. I use the ratings and colors, I *try* to use keywords but more often than not I forget.

I think mostly I like collections because I can have photos in more than one place (for example, "Animals/Mammals/Horses" as well as "Events/Horse Shows/IHA/8-23-2010"), without needing to double the disk space.

 

[Big Mike]

I think mostly I like collections because I can have photos in more than one place (for example, "Animals/Mammals/Horses" as well as "Events/Horse Shows/IHA/8-23-2010"), without needing to double the disk space.

That's the great thing about Lightroom. It's built on a database platform. So pretty much anything you do, whether it's editing the images or sorting them in any number of ways...you aren't duplicating all the image files over and again. Further to that, it's all non-destructive.

 

[Robin Usagani]

What would you do if you want to convert all the RAW files in your catalog to JPEG and delete all the RAW. I am contemplating to do this soon. I have an idea how to do this but maybe you have a better idea Mike and Dmitri.

 

[Big Mike]

Why? Just for the storage space? If so, just go buy a bigger hard drive or two....storage space is cheep.

Basically, you could select all the images and export them (as JPEG). Then delete all the RAW files (do it in LR, so that it doesn't try to look for them). Then re-import the JPEG images.

You might be able to export all the images as a new catalog, saving the step of having to re-import them. But I'm not sure if you can also save them as JPEG while doing that.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I just dont find it that important to me to have the RAW files once I edit them. Personal preference really. Yeah, that is what I was going to do I just thought there might be an easier way so I dont have to reimport.

 

[Dmitri]

I think mostly I like collections because I can have photos in more than one place (for example, "Animals/Mammals/Horses" as well as "Events/Horse Shows/IHA/8-23-2010"), without needing to double the disk space.

That's the great thing about Lightroom. It's built on a database platform. So pretty much anything you do, whether it's editing the images or sorting them in any number of ways...you aren't duplicating all the image files over and again. Further to that, it's all non-destructive.

True True. While there are still some things I would like to see, they did a really good job with Lightroom. Once I started using it, I haven't opened Bridge since.