Lightroom 4 Question (Page 2): Thanks again for the advice. Have not yet gotten to collections in Kelby's book. Will skip ahead (from presets) to collections to see if that helps me to...

Tarfun Loc: Red Bank NJ USA

Old Redeye wrote:

You don't need all those sub-folders. Read Scott Kelby's discussion of Collections. The beauty of key words and collections is that the same photo can appear in multiple Collections without adding duplicate photos. For example, the photo of "Mable" could be in friends, SLV, Portraits, female and any number of other Collections. The folder, in Kelby's description can be likened to the box you kept your negatives in with film cameras.

Thanks again for the advice. Have not yet gotten to collections in Kelby's book. Will skip ahead (from presets) to collections to see if that helps me to better understand the system.

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

Old Redeye wrote:

You don't need all those sub-folders. Read Scott Kelby's discussion of Collections. The beauty of key words and collections is that the same photo can appear in multiple Collections without adding duplicate photos. For example, the photo of "Mable" could be in friends, SLV, Portraits, female and any number of other Collections. The folder, in Kelby's description can be likened to the box you kept your negatives in with film cameras.

Use "Keywords"! It is the most versatile way of organizing your photos. Folders and sub-folders is limiting as a photo can only be in one folder at a time. Keywords allows a photo to be many things at the same time. As your collection grows, you will see the value of this.

I use this extreme example: If I have a picture of "Aunt Mable" and my friend "Joe" in front of the " Washinton Monument" in a "Snow Storm" on an "SVL" outing, what folder or collection does that go in? If I put it into the "Family" folder will I remember that I have a picture of my friend Joe in it too?

If I do a keyword search for "Aunt Mable" I will find all the photos of her whether it was a family outing, an SVL function or whatever. If I further refine the search for "Washington", I will get all the photos I took of her at that venue.

Keywording is a phenominal resource. Check it out!

Old Redeye Loc: San Mateo, CA

That's all true. However, the advantage of Collections is that you can find all the keywords applicable to that collection with one click. Using your example, a Collection of the "SVL Outing to Washington Monument" would include all the photos from the event with ALL the key words. Since it's only a database, it doesn't take much memory. I heartily recommend using Collections AND keywords.

birdpix wrote:

Use "Keywords"! It is the most versatile... (show quote)

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

sbesaw wrote:

For LR to track folders and pic's they should be created, moved and managed from within LR. If you make changes in Explorer LR does not know

Until you use "synchronize folder" as was said before.

Tarfun Loc: Red Bank NJ USA

Old Redeye wrote:

You don't need all those sub-folders. Read Scott Kelby's discussion of Collections. The beauty of key words and collections is that the same photo can appear in multiple Collections without adding duplicate photos. For example, the photo of "Mable" could be in friends, SLV, Portraits, female and any number of other Collections. The folder, in Kelby's description can be likened to the box you kept your negatives in with film cameras.

Hi Old Redeye, Regret delayed response to your suggestions. Have read the ink of the pages in Kelby's and Coalson's books. My action portraits project may not fit the usual pattern. Conversely, I do not yet have a full understanding of how to access stored photos.

I am inclined to think that photos of Anne playing tennis, Anne playing tennis, Anne playing bocce should be stored in separate folders or collections. In that light, I fail to see the difference between separate folders and separate collections.

Is it possible (advisable) to identify photos of Anne with a tags that would permit storing all in one location. Example: Anne[underscore]R[underscore]pool, etc. You additional comments would be appreciated.