This frustrated me this evening for a while...so am letting others know in the event it helps. It seems sort by file type or by file extension don't work in Lightroom if the images in question are stacked. Unstack all images and all is fine. This may be by design but doesn't work well for me because my flow is usually:
1. import NEFs 2. make adjustments 3. export JPGs and automatically add these to the library and stack them with the original 4. sort by file extension and select JPGs for upload or some other processing.
I think your workflow is contrary to LR's usage philosophy. The way I understand the philoshophy is that if you shoot raw, then JPG files is an export-only medium, and not to be stored in LR. I've struggled with this myself. How to set the option "Treat raw and jpg files separate"? If yes, you always have to keyword, rate, move, delete, whatever, the two file typs. If no, you can't even see the jpg file if you have the raw file. This option should be folder-specific: for old shoots where I used the raw files as raw material only and saved the edits as jpg, I should be able set the jpg files as the masters. The way I approach your problem is to create collections and collection sets of images, in whatever format, and then batch export as jpg files to an external folder which is not managed by LR. The problem is, of course, that re-processing and exporting hundreds of raw files may take hours, but I can leave the computer running overnight.
>The way I understand the philoshophy is that if you shoot raw, >then JPG files is an export-only medium, and not to be stored >in LR.
Hmmm... interesting thought. I'm not sure that is an LR philosophy.
There is an LR option when exporting to add the exported file to the catalog. JPGs are quite useful. It is what a lot of print shops want. It is what one would share with someone else, email, etc. So one would naturally want to manage these in the catalog, especially if they have been purposely resized, EXIF data modified for a specific intent, colour managed, soft-proofed, etc.
I do however see what you may be saying. Work with NEFs (including virtual copies) and don't worry about underlying derivative JPG files which remain "under the hood" as an intermediate format on the way to printers, Flickr, SmugMug, email etc.
I add my jpg exports to the catalog so I can find them later by keyword, etc.
When I start a new project, I make a folder with 3 subfolders. 1 subfolder for nef, 1 for max size jpg, 1 for small jpg (like for posting here.) I have export presets set up that make these all quick to use.
But I never stack. I find it very frustrating.
working on it in Middle TN Nikon D3100
35 mm 1.8 Nikkor 18-55 mm Nikkor VR 55-200 mm Nikkor VR 55-300 mm Nikkor VR 150-500 mm Sigma OS MeFoto Road Trip w/Q1 ballhead Feisol CT3471 & Markins M20 ballhead
Oh I'm sure it's an LR philosophy (one of many). The problem is that there isn't one unifying philosophy, and the difficulty of managing multiple formats of supposedly identical content is an aspect where this lack is apparent. Diane uses folders, some use stacks, I use stars. The master image (NEF, PSD, TIF) gets 2 - 5 stars, one star meaning "keep but don't show". That's what I give to raw materials, like component shots for HDR/panorama shots, or to NEF files which from which I've made PSD masters in Photoshop.
It would be nice to have *the* LR philosophy for managing master images in a mix of formats.
>Diane uses folders, some use stacks, I use stars. The master >image (NEF, PSD, TIF) gets 2 - 5 stars, one star meaning >"keep but don't show".
>It would be nice to have *the* LR philosophy for managing >master images in a mix of formats.
One that everyone likes would be great - but my guess is consensus on that is impossible!
Going back to my original post, I want to clarify that in order to sort by file type one has to not merely expand stacks but remove them altogether. That still doesn't seem logical to me, even when considering the various ways of using LR. I am thinking I am wrong somewhere or missing something.
I shoot RAW and import into Lightroom. Everything is done to the RAW images — developing, ranking, etc. Only when done do I export JPGs.
For a client I export both full res and web res JPGs, stored in different folders. The web JPGs are sometimes uploaded to a web page for early client viewin; both JPGs folders are provided to the client on CD/DVD.
Shots for personal use are stored RAW only, and select images exported as JPG for iPhone/iPad/web upload.
I see little need to keep JPGs. I can always export them again if needed, and the RAW images in the catalog are, of course, key worded, rated, and fully searchable.
The only non-RAW images in the catalog are processed HDR shots or images that were processed by NIK filters.
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
I agree with Jon. I don't keep any JPG's in LR. If I need one, I just export it.
One small, but very useful LR plug-in I use is Tim Armes' LR Mogrify. You can do many things quickly and easily with this program. For example, you can set up a number of presets in the Export dialog box. Each preset can direct an image to a particular folder, as well as set file size, resolution, dimension, file name, etc. So I have presets for full resolution images to be sent out for printing, for posting to a Nikonians forum at a max resolution of 150kbs, for posting mid-resolution images to my Nikonians Gallery, etc.
The plug-in is free, although you're limited to exporting 10 images in bulk at any one time. If you export them individually, there is no limitation. For a small donation (the amount is up to you), you get unrestricted use.
>JPEGs are disposable. I make them when I need them but don't >keep them. Easy to make another if needed. Why have all >those extra images sitting around.
Here is one reason: I create a JPG hierarchy on my office computer and then push this to our family iPad and an NAS drive in our home. With the use of LR smart collections and some useful scripts from Jeffrey Friedl I am able to easily fit some 25,000 images in about 8 gig of iPad memory space. Using SyncBackSE I incrementally update this hierarchy any time there are new pictures (SyncBackSE will push only the new or changed files). I certainly wouldn't want to generate the JPGs every time.
1. you can set up a smart collection to just see jpg files in a directory. after reading about smart collections for a few years i finally got the message that you should work with collections when possible.
2. usually when i build a jpg, i store it in the same directory as the original file, except in a sub directory to that file called jpg. then everything is nice and organized and i can look at the files from a shoot or something without seeing double.
stacking the files does not save any space, just don't see as many files.
I use Smart Collections to filter all sorts of data - by file type, by camera, by lens, by a variety of dates (last 30 days, last 180 days, 2012, 2011, 2010, etc), by ratings, etc. I may not use one of these folders all the time, but they're always there and ready. And because they're Smart Collections, there is no maintenance involved. I often wonder how many images have I taken with one lens versus another, which may help me decide if I am really using a lens enough to justify keeping it, for example. I can look at my smart collection folders and quickly see how many images are listed in the folder.
I never add the generated jpegs to my LR catalog. I do keep two sets of external folders of jpegs, however:
- one set is managed by smart publish sets in LR and contains the Albums which will be sync'd to the family iDevices (iPads, IPhones, etc) using iTunes. This is about 1500 images in each of several resolutions. - one set are the actual jpegs I've made prints of, sorted by the vendor (Adorama, etc). That way there's never any issue of being able to reprint an image someone likes. This set is numbered in the dozens, btw, and may someday may have several hundred images. But it's not big.