LR2: Collections...

Candid Arts

So I just purchased the Scott Kelby book, LR2 for Digital Photographers. I'm only in the beginning at this point, but I had a question, that yet, hasn't been answered.

Scott talks highly about using collections in the Library Module in LR2.

Example:

Collection: "Weddings"
Collection Set: "April and Adam"
Collection Set: "Dan and Michelle"
Collection Set: "Alex and Hilary"
etc...

Collection: "Landscapes"
Collection Set: "Juneau, AK"
Collection Set: "Anchorage, AK"
Collection Set: "Portland, OR"
etc...

Now, in the catalog itself, this is exactly how I organize my photos on my ext. hard drive. So what is the benefit of having my photos organized in this fashion in a "Collection" or "Collection Set" when they are organized the exact same way in my general Catalog in LR2 and on my ext. hard drive?

I can easily open up the ext. hard drive in the catalog, select my pictures folder, weddings, alex and hilary...It doesn't seem much easier to have a collection, plus all the time to set up the collection when I already have them organized the exact same way. Is there something I missed in his reasoning why they are so important?

In the catalog where all my folders are on my ext. hard drive, I can flag them, rate them, set labels, all the same stuff I can do with a Collection. The "Quick Collection" however I could see some potential, as it's a more temorary "Collection" and could be used to quickly group photos from many folders to show a potential client your past work, or if you need to gather photos from many folders quickly for any other reason, temporarily and w/o moving the originals. But the more "permanent" "Collections" seem redundant to me.

Thoughts? Thank you...

*Btw...I'm only on page 74 (ish) in the Library Module section out of 420 pages, so I'm just starting to read. But he covered the collections stuff rather quickly and seemed to move on.

Thunder Rabbit

Howdy.

As I'm sure you realize, Collections is not a folder of duplicate images. It is a list of images and where to find them in the Lr catalog.

A typical advantageous use would be to create a portfolio. For instance, you might have 30 folders of landscape images containing 3 or 4 hundred images. If you wanted to select twenty of these for a particular presentation, you could create a Collection for that purpose. As you go through your folders, the images you decide on can be dragged and dropped into the Collection. No duplicate images are made. When you call up the Collection, Lr gathers the images from where ever they are and displays them.

The examples given from your book do seem to imply that you are merely duplicating your hard drive hierarchy. I think this is a poor example. You are quite right that if you use Collections in this way, it's easier just to go the the HD folder and use filters to call up your best images.

My Collections don't look anything like my file hierarchy. I only have 17 collections, whereas I have dozens and dozens of file folders. For instance, I have a "Scenic" collection. I put my favorite landscapes in it. The images in it are from folders all over the place. And I don't have to try and remember which folder a favorite image is in. I click on the Collection, and, regardless of where they are on the hard drive, they are immediately rendered as a group in Lr.

I wasn't too keen on the Collections myself at first, but now that I understand them, I'd hate to have to do without them. They can really save you a lot of time.

Candid Arts

Gotchya. That makes a bit more sense. Something I may get into once I get done with all my file naming and keywords. Since I hadn't done this from the beginning, I now have 2000 + photos to go through, import and rename, re-organize, and keyword. This part sucks, but, it needs to be done. Once I get this done, then I'll continue reading, and later, maybe start using some collections. Thank you for your help.

Thunder Rabbit

Howdy.

Just a couple of more things about Collections.

You are right that the Quick Collection is something you might have a use for right away. All you have to do is press "B" and the selected image or images will be added. And it can be converted to a regular Collection if you want.

We didn't talk about Smart Collections. A Smart Collection will automatically accumulate images based on criteria you select. Star ratings, color labels, EXIF data, keywords, and more. Pretty handy.

As an aside, I have found another use for Collections. I have made a collection for my wife called "Tricia's Shoebox". She doesn't know diddle squat about Lr, but she can open a folder and drag and drop images she wants printed into her "shoebox" for me to print. Works great, and promotes marital bliss.

I was about 5000 images behind before the light came on for me about the importance of keywords and star ratings. So I know how you feel.

But Lr can make it easier than one would think. Lr will add keywords as you import automatically. And there are several ways to add keywords to batches. The Paint tool is a good one. It will add keywords, labels, metadata, develop settings, flags, ratings, and more. It can add them to individual images or a group of selected images. Of course, star ratings will still be an image by image process.

Anywho, speaking of the wife, she left me a list, and I better get on it.

Richard

Another important difference is that a single pic may be included in many different collections. Using a folder hierarchy scheme, you would have to duplicate the pic. Using a database, you only need one copy.

arodney

Richard wrote:

Another important difference is that a single pic may be included in many different collections. Using a folder hierarchy scheme, you would have to duplicate the pic. Using a database, you only need one copy.

Exactly. I usually describe Collections to people who've used iTunes. You can have a single MP3 but place it in numerous playlists.

There might be one Raw or rendered image in the LR database, but it can "live" in multiple locations called Collections. Just like Virtual Copies. One original, many iterations but they don't exist other than the metadata instructions that describe them. IOW, you don't have 20 Virtual Copies, you have one original and 20 different possible rendering instructions. When you actually need a "hard copy" LR takes the original source data, the metadata instructions for that VC and builds a pixel based iteration for you. Only at that point is there really a second physical, pixel based document.

Candid Arts

All great ideas for use of Collections. Thank you all. I will be using these as soon as I get my database up and running the way I want it with keywords, organization, file naming, ratings, etc...

Mike J

Here's one way I use collections...

• I use smart collections to create different galleries of family members. For family photos, I add a keyword to identify which family member is the the photo (multiple keywords if multiple family members). Smart collections allows me to setup different "galleries" for the kids. For instance, I have a smart collection that just searches for the Sophie keyword. This collection has all photos that my oldest daughter is in. I have also set-up a smart collection to show all the photos that she is in but NOT anyone else in the immediate family. My kids love this. They love being able to see their photos.

As Richard pointed out, the real power is having a photo in multiple collections... a photo may be in your portfolio collection and in a client's collection.

My folder structure is also very different then yours. I sort my files by date. I found that this creates less confusion on my drives as I could never remember what I was trying to do with the HD structure. This way, it is by year and month. The trade-off is that I need to use collections to get a semblance of organization to the 10,000+ photos I have in LR. Needless to say, I make full use of collection sets and smart collections (and the ability to find things by keywords)

Candid Arts

The putting names in keywords and using smart collections to gather photos of specific people is an interesting idea. As of now, I have that all set up in my ext. HD structure. However, I do have photos with multiple people in them in different locations etc... So that's an interesting idea. I haven't gotten to keywording any of my people pictures yet, so I will definitely be adding the names of people in them and using the smart collections for that. Great idea. Thank you.

I tried by date a long time ago when I first got into photography, but couldn't remember for the life of me exactly when I took a specific photo, but I knew what was in the photo and where it was taken (city/state). So I decided to organize by what's in the photo and narrow it down from there to person, specific subject matter, or location.

Tiziano

Thunder Rabbit wrote:

As an aside, I have found another use for Collections. I have made a collection for my wife called "Tricia's Shoebox". She doesn't know diddle squat about Lr, but she can open a folder and drag and drop images she wants printed into her "shoebox" for me to print. Works great, and promotes marital bliss.

I love this idea!

Since I first got LR2 I've been creating new libraries everytime I import unless the new photos obviously relate to another, previous library. Is this bad practice?

Thunder Rabbit

Howdy.

Hi, Tiziano. When you say "libraries" are you talking about Collections?

Assuming you are, I'm still not sure exactly what your "practice" is. But Collections are one place where I'm not sure there would be a "bad practice", other than creating them in way that does little more than duplicate your hard drive files. Collections are ultra-personal, and the ideal set up would be very specific to your needs.

As Arodney and Richard point out, Collections don't create any duplicate images, and a single image can be in multiple Collections. The IPod playlist analogy is perfect. (Why didn't I think of that?)

Since a Collection is essentially a playlist, and has no effect on your file folders or their content, any system of Collections that suits your needs is appropriate. And there is really no downside to even the most extravagant experimentation with your own Collections system.

colourbox

Tiziano wrote:

Since I first got LR2 I've been creating new libraries everytime I import unless the new photos obviously relate to another, previous library. Is this bad practice?

You mean like a new catalog? If you do, there's nothing inherently bad about multiple catalogs except that you can't search across them, and you have a lot more files to manage. Some pros make separate catalogs because different clients' jobs will never be mixed. But I maintain one single catalog because then I can find any photos I've ever taken and mix any photos from any shoot into a collection. When you create a separate catalog, those photos are "walled off" from any other catalogs and I don't like that.

arodney

colourbox wrote:

Some pros make separate catalogs because different clients' jobs will never be mixed. But I maintain one single catalog because then I can find any photos I've ever taken and mix any photos from any shoot into a collection. When you create a separate catalog, those photos are "walled off" from any other catalogs and I don't like that.

Until such a time that LR can open multiple catalogs, maybe move images about, I also agree, one catalog is ideal, at least until you get to the point where it might explode due to too many images (which arguably is over 100,000). I started with multiple catalogs, subscribing to the Peter Krogh "bucket" idea (keeping them to 50 gigs). Just got too difficult to find images as you point out.

As for jobs, keep them in separate folders. Using Collections, you can now move the best images from each into a location for say, best portfolio pieces and the like. Between proper folder structures, collections and such, its easy to keep track of everything in one catalog.

Tiziano

I'm sorry guys, I meant catalogs.
It just seemed like a good idea since I go between a MacBookPro and my G5 with these projects. I just copy the catalog files and the main folder with the images. This lets me go back and forth with ease, as well as back up.