Show only relevant folders, not Folder Path (automatically "trim the tree")

[syncrasy]

Did someone already request this? If not, here's the request:

Automatically “trim” the folder path “tree” in the Browse pane to show only the folder(s) that contain cataloged images, i.e., just display the folder, not the path. (This would eliminate the tedious process of navigating the folder path/tree to see the name of the relevant folder.)

[Kirk Baker]

Mark,

Did someone already request this? If not, here's the request:

Automatically “trim” the folder path “tree” in the Browse pane to show only the folder(s) that contain cataloged images, i.e., just display the folder, not the path. (This would eliminate the tedious process of navigating the folder path/tree to see the name of the relevant folder.)

Hmm, if we only display the leaf folders of the tree then there could be some confusion when the same name is used in multiple paths.

2017/12
2018/12
2019/12

Would turn into:
12
12
12

-Kirk

[syncrasy]

Ahhh... I wasn't envisioning displaying all subfolders at the top level. I meant to say the catalogued folder(s), i.e., Location(s) associated with a catalog, would be displayed at the top.

Let's say I have this path on my computer:

My Computer
   My Documents
        Business files
           My business photography [catalog #1 location folder]
               Raw files
                  2017
                      12
                  2018
                      12
        Personal files
           Family photographs [catalog #2 location folder]
               Raw files
                  2017
                      12
                  2018
                      12

Then the Folder Path in the PM+ Browse panel would look like this:

>My business photography
>Family photographs

That's more or less how Media Pro does it. It trims the tree so that the folder that's the immediate parent to the highest folder with a catalogued image is the top displayed folder. In Media Pro the UI represents a single catalog that can contain multiple "locations" catalogued folders, while in PM+, as I understand it, each catalog is tied to a single location,, while PM+ is a little more complex since the UI is used for multiple catalogs and their folders, but I think the result would be essentially the same, visually speaking.

Does that make more sense? Is that doable in a PM environment? Obviously there still could be an issue with similar or identical folder names, but at those higher parent levels, users should be using more descriptive names anyway.

But I'd also step back for a moment and take a look at a the PM+ UI overall. I think the Navigator and Organizer: Browse areas are doing duplicative work. I'll have to play with PM+ some more to state this with confidence, but I suspect the Favorites section and the Browse panel are in all likelihood redundant. I'm trying to envision a scenario in which my catalog folders were not my favorites, or vice versa, but I can't think of one. If I have to specify my catalog folders/locations by browsing for them using the Catalog Manager anyway, I don't need to see three separate representations of my folders or folder structure (Favorites, Navigator, Folder Path). One is enough. Yes, I know, "PM+" literally means PM "plus" catalog/organizer, but I don't know if I would use the Navigator to find an uncatalogued image somewhere on my computer, so I suspect the current UI might appear to be a compromise to veteran DAM users expecting a streamlined catalog experience. Of course I can just ignore the Navigator tab, so I will leave the product philosophy discussion for another day 

[Hayo Baan]

This sounds like an unworkable request; with a PM+ catalog there is no single “root” folder so what you're asking can't be implemented. What could work though  is that PM strips the common root path to all folders in the catalog. In your example that would mean "My Computer\My documents" would get stripped leaving you with "Business files" and "Personal files" as unique roots. Not exactly what you want, but close. This could be an advantage since it saves having to expand levels without differences.

In Media Pro the UI represents a single catalog that can contain multiple "locations" (catalogued folders), while in PM+, as I understand it, each catalog is tied to a single location, but I think the result would be essentially the same, visually speaking.

No, unless I misunderstood your remark, the catalog in PM+ is absolutely not tied to a single location; you can have items from multiple folders and even drives in a single catalog…

But I'd also step back for a moment and take a look at a the PM+ UI overall. I think the Navigator and Organizer: Browse areas are doing duplicative work. I'll have to play with PM+ some more to state this with confidence, but I suspect the Favorites section and the Browse panel are in all likelihood redundant. I'm trying to envision a scenario in which my catalog folders were not my favorites, or vice versa, but I can't think of one. If I have to specify my catalog folders/locations by browsing for them using the Catalog Manager anyway, I don't need to see three separate representations of my folders or folder structure (Favorites, Navigator, Folder Path). One is enough. Yes, I know, "PM+" literally means PM "plus" catalog/organizer, but I don't know if I would use the Navigator to find an uncatalogued image somewhere on my computer, so I suspect the current UI might appear to be a compromise to veteran DAM users expecting a streamlined catalog experience. Of course I can just ignore the Navigator tab, so I will leave the product philosophy discussion for another day 

There is a huge difference between the Favourites/Navigator and Browser/Filter/Collection parts! The first is for navigating through your images that may or may not be in any catalog, the other is just for images that are in a catalog. An essential difference, they need to be both there! It doesn't matter if your favourites folders  are always in a catalog (for me they aren't), how would you navigate your images that aren't in a catalog without the navigator? If you only want to browse what's in your catalog, stay in the catalog mode, and don't switch to the Favourites/Navigator mode.

As you said yourself, PM+ is not just a catalog it's PM + a catalog. This, I think, is one of the great things about PM+ and sure doesn't feel like a compromise to me! There will be images that you will never want as part of a catalog but still want to be able to work on. That's one of the issues e.g. with LR: that's simply impossible, you must add to the catalog, always (which is just plain stupid for some images).

[Kirk Baker]

Mark,

Ahhh... I wasn't envisioning displaying all subfolders at the top level. I meant to say the catalogued folder(s), i.e., Location(s) associated with a catalog, would be displayed at the top.

Let's say I have this path on my computer:

My Computer
   My Documents
        Business files
           My business photography [catalog #1 location folder]
               Raw files
                  2017
                      12
                  2018
                      12
        Personal files
           Family photographs [catalog #2 location folder]
               Raw files
                  2017
                      12
                  2018
                      12

Then the Folder Path in the PM+ Browse panel would look like this:

>My business photography
>Family photographs

Thank you for the clarification.  Hayo's response echoes my thoughts as well.

If you want to live entirely in the Catalog space, feel free to ignore and not use the Favorites and Navigator.  For many other users, PM+ is a browser first and a Catalog system second and they will use both interfaces at various times during their workflow.

-Kirk

[syncrasy]

This sounds like an unworkable request; with a PM+ catalog there is no single “root” folder so what you're asking can't be implemented. What could work though  is that PM strips the common root path to all folders in the catalog. In your example that would mean "My Computer\My documents" would get stripped leaving you with "Business files" and "Personal files" as unique roots. Not exactly what you want, but close. This could be an advantage since it saves having to expand levels without differences.

Yes, your description is actually more accurate than my description. The intent is to show the lowest parent folder (or lowest parent folders if there are multiple paths). Any trimming would be appreciated.

In Media Pro the UI represents a single catalog that can contain multiple "locations" (catalogued folders), while in PM+, as I understand it, each catalog is tied to a single location, but I think the result would be essentially the same, visually speaking.

No, unless I misunderstood your remark, the catalog in PM+ is absolutely not tied to a single location; you can have items from multiple folders and even drives in a single catalog…

Hayo, you're absolutely correct. When I was staring at the Catalog Management window last night, I couldn't find the "add folder" button. I thought had a added more than one folder to my catalog when I created it several weeks ago, but I couldn't remember how I did it. I had completely forgotten that there is a separate window, Scan to Catalog. It seems that the functionality of the two windows might be merged into a single window. But if both windows are necessary (rather than merging them), there probably should be a "Scan to Catalog" button on the Catalog Management window, just as there is a "Manage Catalogs" button on the Scan to Catalog window.

But, more to the point, unless my brain/eyes are failing me again, neither window shows which folders are already tied to which catalogs. So there are possibly a couple usability issues here. Wouldn't it make sense for either the Scan to Catalog or Catalog Management window to always show which folder(s) are associated with the catalogs?

But I'd also step back for a moment and take a look at a the PM+ UI overall. I think the Navigator and Organizer: Browse areas are doing duplicative work. I'll have to play with PM+ some more to state this with confidence, but I suspect the Favorites section and the Browse panel are in all likelihood redundant. I'm trying to envision a scenario in which my catalog folders were not my favorites, or vice versa, but I can't think of one. If I have to specify my catalog folders/locations by browsing for them using the Catalog Manager anyway, I don't need to see three separate representations of my folders or folder structure (Favorites, Navigator, Folder Path). One is enough. Yes, I know, "PM+" literally means PM "plus" catalog/organizer, but I don't know if I would use the Navigator to find an uncatalogued image somewhere on my computer, so I suspect the current UI might appear to be a compromise to veteran DAM users expecting a streamlined catalog experience. Of course I can just ignore the Navigator tab, so I will leave the product philosophy discussion for another day 

There is a huge difference between the Favourites/Navigator and Browser/Filter/Collection parts! The first is for navigating through your images that may or may not be in any catalog, the other is just for images that are in a catalog. An essential difference, they need to be both there! It doesn't matter if your favourites folders  are always in a catalog (for me they aren't), how would you navigate your images that aren't in a catalog without the navigator? If you only want to browse what's in your catalog, stay in the catalog mode, and don't switch to the Favourites/Navigator mode.

As you said yourself, PM+ is not just a catalog it's PM + a catalog. This, I think, is one of the great things about PM+ and sure doesn't feel like a compromise to me! There will be images that you will never want as part of a catalog but still want to be able to work on. That's one of the issues e.g. with LR: that's simply impossible, you must add to the catalog, always (which is just plain stupid for some images).

It's a matter of perspective and prior experience. You have used only a browser and have gotten along fine without a DAM. I have used only a DAM and have gotten along fine without a browser. It's possible PM+ could provide the best of both worlds, and I can just ignore the parts I don't need (as I already stated above).

[Hayo Baan]

This sounds like an unworkable request; with a PM+ catalog there is no single “root” folder so what you're asking can't be implemented. What could work though  is that PM strips the common root path to all folders in the catalog. In your example that would mean "My Computer\My documents" would get stripped leaving you with "Business files" and "Personal files" as unique roots. Not exactly what you want, but close. This could be an advantage since it saves having to expand levels without differences.

Yes, your description is actually more accurate than my description. The intent is to show the lowest parent folder (or lowest parent folders if there are multiple paths). Any trimming would be appreciated.

Yes, trimming like I described would be nice to have indeed

In Media Pro the UI represents a single catalog that can contain multiple "locations" (catalogued folders), while in PM+, as I understand it, each catalog is tied to a single location, but I think the result would be essentially the same, visually speaking.

No, unless I misunderstood your remark, the catalog in PM+ is absolutely not tied to a single location; you can have items from multiple folders and even drives in a single catalog…

Hayo, you're absolutely correct. When I was staring at the Catalog Management window last night, I couldn't find the "add folder" button. I thought had a added more than one folder to my catalog when I created it several weeks ago, but I couldn't remember how I did it. I had completely forgotten that there is a separate window, Scan to Catalog. It seems that the functionality of the two windows might be merged into a single window. But if both windows are necessary (rather than merging them), there probably should be a "Scan to Catalog" button on the Catalog Management window, just as there is a "Manage Catalogs" button on the Scan to Catalog window.

But, more to the point, unless my brain/eyes are failing me again, neither window shows which folders are already tied to which catalogs. So there are possibly a couple usability issues here. Wouldn't it make sense for either the Scan to Catalog or Catalog Management window to always show which folder(s) are associated with the catalogs?

Actually, this too can't be done (reliably) since it might very well be that not all files in a folder are in the catalog (and it would be too costly to verify each time a folder is shown). However, if you open a folder as contact sheet, you'll immediately see which ones are in a catalog and which ones aren't (I'm sure we'll also get a filter for this in some future release).

It's a matter of perspective and prior experience. You have used only a browser and have gotten along fine without a DAM. I have used only a DAM and have gotten along fine without a browser. It's possible PM+ could provide the best of both worlds, and I can just ignore the parts I don't need (as I already stated above).

I'm sure, over time, you'll come to love the fact you have both in one (I know for myself this definitely is the case), for now, just ignore the part you're not interested in

[syncrasy]

But, more to the point, unless my brain/eyes are failing me again, neither window shows which folders are already tied to which catalogs. So there are possibly a couple usability issues here. Wouldn't it make sense for either the Scan to Catalog or Catalog Management window to always show which folder(s) are associated with the catalogs?

Actually, this too can't be done (reliably) since it might very well be that not all files in a folder are in the catalog (and it would be too costly to verify each time a folder is shown).

I don't understand. The catalog has to have a record of all folders included/excluded in that catalog, even if you later remove all but one of that folder's images from that catalog. Those folders are displayed in the Browse pane's Folder Path tree (the one we would like to trim). I'm just suggesting that those folders also be listed in the Scan to Catalog window since it is too easy to forget which folders I added to that catalog weeks, months, or years ago. Does that make sense?

For example, in Time Machine, Apple's backup utility, a list of excluded folders/directories is always displayed. You simply click a "+" or "-" to add or remove an item from the exclusion list. Would not the same concept apply to catalog management? Or am I misunderstanding something? I suppose unchecking the "Clear this list on successful completion" check box before using the software would be workaround, but I would think a more permanent list would be desirable.

However, if you open a folder as contact sheet, you'll immediately see which ones are in a catalog and which ones aren't (I'm sure we'll also get a filter for this in some future release).

I'm confused. When you say, "you'll immediately see which ones," are you talking about images or folders? I'm talking about seeing folders.

[Hayo Baan]

But, more to the point, unless my brain/eyes are failing me again, neither window shows which folders are already tied to which catalogs. So there are possibly a couple usability issues here. Wouldn't it make sense for either the Scan to Catalog or Catalog Management window to always show which folder(s) are associated with the catalogs?

Actually, this too can't be done (reliably) since it might very well be that not all files in a folder are in the catalog (and it would be too costly to verify each time a folder is shown).

I don't understand. The catalog has to have a record of all folders included/excluded in that catalog, even if you later remove all but one of that folder's images from that catalog. Those folders are displayed in the Browse pane's Folder Path tree (the one we would like to trim). I'm just suggesting that those folders also be listed in the Scan to Catalog window since it is too easy to forget which folders I added to that catalog weeks, months, or years ago. Does that make sense?

Right, I see, you want to have a list of folders that were scanned before in the Scan to Catalog dialog. Right that makes sense. I thought you wanted to have an indication in e.g. the navigator to show the folder is in the catalog (which as I said, can't be done reliable short of rescanning whole folder trees which is prohibitively expensive). What you want is possible, I think, and might actually already be on the list of features since this would also enable a way to implement “synchronize whole catalog” or something like that.

For example, in Time Machine, Apple's backup utility, a list of excluded folders/directories is always displayed. You simply click a "+" or "-" to add or remove an item from the exclusion list. Would not the same concept apply to catalog management? Or am I misunderstanding something? I suppose unchecking the "Clear this list on successful completion" check box before using the software would be workaround, but I would think a more permanent list would be desirable.

Yes, but that would show all images, not just the folders. So this doesn't really do what you would want.

However, if you open a folder as contact sheet, you'll immediately see which ones are in a catalog and which ones aren't (I'm sure we'll also get a filter for this in some future release).

I'm confused. When you say, "you'll immediately see which ones," are you talking about images or folders? I'm talking about seeing folders.

I'm talking about the images themselves; the ones in a catalog are marked with a green dot.

[Odd Skjaeveland]

...For example, in Time Machine, Apple's backup utility, a list of excluded folders/directories is always displayed. You simply click a "+" or "-" to add or remove an item from the exclusion list. Would not the same concept apply to catalog management? Or am I misunderstanding something? I suppose unchecking the "Clear this list on successful completion" check box before using the software would be workaround, but I would think a more permanent list would be desirable.

I find your backup analogy just fine, good thinking. The kind of functionality you describe is likely already on the road map, but we don't know that.

[Luiz Muzzi]

Actually, this too can't be done (reliably) since it might very well be that not all files in a folder are in the catalog (and it would be too costly to verify each time a folder is shown). However, if you open a folder as contact sheet, you'll immediately see which ones are in a catalog and which ones aren't (I'm sure we'll also get a filter for this in some future release).

Hi, everyone.
I think that such a feature would be wonderful. I would like to be able to filter and show which files are in a catalog.
Best regards,

- Luiz Muzzi