Folders vs Collections (Page 6): … which can be done successfully and efficiently without resorting to collections.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

CHG_CANON wrote:

As if that has anything to do with management of a portfolio of digital assets.

… which can be done successfully and efficiently without resorting to collections.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON wrote:

The market of professional photographers has spoken, clearly and emphatically for Lightroom, no matter what the villagers in the land of the lost argue against.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

selmslie wrote:

… which can be done successfully and efficiently without resorting to collections.

Collections are simply another method of organization.
One can utilize it or not.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

selmslie wrote:

… which can be done successfully and efficiently without resorting to collections.

A real professional knows how to use folders.

A Capture One subscription costs 50% more than the Adobe's. It's worth it to me to avoid collections.

I can cut that cost significantly by buying a perpetual license every two or three years. Can you do that with Lightroom?

Neither program offers major breakthrough advances in ease of use or capability on a monthly or yearly basis. Small incremental changes accommodate newer cameras and correct bugs.

Collections are for armatures that want to play with their images rather than going out and capturing new ones.

DJCard Loc: Northern Kentucky

selmslie wrote:

Understanding your computer's file system is a prerequisite for understanding collections.

Trying to explain collections to someone who does not have a clear understanding of the file system is not going to work.

One of my colleagues had a term for such bewilderment, "It's like cows watching a passing train."

This is fully understood … however, does that “intellectual show” really help OP? Like I said to OP, ‘There’s a whole lot more to this story … ‘ I find it very easy to present what you think you know so some people cannot understand. You have to be much more clever to explain in such a way ‘you can explain it to your grandmother’ (A. Einstein).

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

selmslie wrote:

A real professional knows how to use folders.

A real professional knows how to use both folders and collections and other database features.

selmslie wrote:

A Capture One subscription costs 50% more than the Adobe's. It's worth it to me to avoid collections.

I can cut that cost significantly by buying a perpetual license every two or three years. Can you do that with Lightroom?

The cost is a red herring. If you're dealing with professionals (which seems to be a major topic here), the cost is passed on to clients. Neither Adobe nor C1 cost is significant in that regard. Since any hobby has associated costs, I don't think the cost of either is really significant to an amateur either.

selmslie wrote:

Neither program offers major breakthrough advances in ease of use or capability on a monthly or yearly basis. Small incremental changes accommodate newer cameras and correct bugs.

Collections are for armatures that want to play with their images rather than going out and capturing new ones.

Collections are a useful part of a database. If you have an inherent bias against them, that's your problem, not anyone else's. Ignoring useful tools because you don't like them is not something that marks a professional.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

DJCard wrote:

This is fully understood … however, does that “intellectual show” really help OP? Like I said to OP, ‘There’s a whole lot more to this story … ‘ I find it very easy to present what you think you know so some people cannot understand. You have to be much more clever to explain in such a way ‘you can explain it to your grandmother’ (A. Einstein).

Yes. The OP originally asked whether Lightroom Classic and it's use of collections is beneficial.

junglejim1949 wrote:

I am looking at Lr Classic. I have watched several videos which explained several approaches to organizing your photos.
One person stated don't use folders, use collections. Can someone elaborate?

The answer depends on how well he understands the folder system. My response would be, "Don't use collections, use folders."

That will leave his options open to use almost any program besides Lightroom to accomplish his work.

If he wants to use collections later on there are lots of options besides Lightroom.

DJCard Loc: Northern Kentucky

selmslie wrote:

The answer depends on how well he understands the folder system. My response would be, "Don't use collections, use folders."

That will leave his options open to use almost any program besides Lightroom to accomplish his work.

If he wants to use collections later on there are lots of options besides Lightroom.

Well said, and succinctly so!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

DirtFarmer wrote:

A real professional knows how to use both folders and collections and other database features.

Collections are a useful part of a database. If you have an inherent bias against them, that's your problem, not anyone else's. Ignoring useful tools because you don't like them is not something that marks a professional.

As I already described, I use an Access database for my scanned film. But that does not make it a collection.

I can do a query on that database and find all of the film rolls that have the same basic characteristics including subject matter.

See an example below. Each row describes up to 36 images in the sub directory (the "ID" column).

DirtFarmer wrote:

The cost is a red herring. If you're dealing with professionals (which seems to be a major topic here), the cost is passed on to clients. Neither Adobe nor C1 cost is significant in that regard.

The cost is important to the non- or semi-professional. But a real professional probably has a more expensive subscription with more options and benefits than a hobbyist would need.

A database query for Kodachrome 200 showing three different camera bodies and two film sizes

druid_city_dude Loc: Tuscaloosa, AL

Include me in your student list. Will Rudd/ (email address removed)

delder Loc: Maryland

Longshadow wrote:

What HE prefers...
It would be interesting to know why though.

I simply organize mine by subject with Windows Explorer in directories and sub-directories with keywords in the metadata.
My wife does not need to learn a cataloger..... She knows Explorer.
THAT works for me.

AGREE 100% I was using sub-directories LONG before Windows 1 ever came out.
The transition to Folders/Subfolders was intuative back then.
@ one time in the past, when drive space was @ a premium, some were concerned with de-duplication.
With the current glut of storage [Physical/On Line], even this concern has gone away.

All of my images are in camera rolls, [Just like film] THEN select photos go into ADDITIONAL DIRECTORIES according to subject. This is NOT an either-or choice, and I can ALWAYS find my shot somewhere.
[Thumbnails are the new Proof Sheets]

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

delder wrote:

AGREE 100% I was using sub-directories LONG before... (show quote)

Yup, in DOS; Unix; RSX-11. Been organizing by directories and sub-directories ever since.
(Then they came up with a gee-whiz-bang name for them.... "folders". Maybe "directories" was too much typing.

)
I still call them directories, maybe use the word folder 25% of the time.
I don't use Camera Rolls, that's new with 10/11 isn't it?
Another gee-whiz-bang moniker.

delder Loc: Maryland

Longshadow wrote:

Yup, in DOS; Unix; RSX-11. Been organizing by dire... (show quote)

No, the Digital Cameras all apply some unique date /number sequence to EACH shot.
Package film had frame numbers anyway.
So, I have a folder for EACH camera [D-3100, Lumix by type, Kodak by type etc.]
I then COPY selected [best/processed] images to folder(s) according to subject.
Cruise Photos [by sailing], scenery,
[by mountains, lakes, etc]
Transportation etc.
That way I can always find the shot I want!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

delder wrote:

No, the Digital Cameras all apply some unique date /number sequence to EACH shot.
Package film had frame numbers anyway.
So, I have a folder for EACH camera [D-3100, Lumix by type, Kodak by type etc.]
I then COPY selected [best/processed] images to folder(s) according to subject.
Cruise Photos [by sailing], scenery,
[by mountains, lakes, etc]
Transportation etc.
That way I can always find the shot I want!

So you have the same photos in two places? Under 'camera' and under 'subject'?
As long as you know where to find them, that's what counts.

All my same subject are in the same directory no matter what camera was used.
I care about the subject, not the camera.

delder Loc: Maryland

Yes. I have some contests that have a different theme every month. The "Camera Rolls" relate to Road Trips or Cruises.