Wish: Dynamic Search + Collections = Dynamic Collections

[freudenthaler]

Implicitly? Is the sort order of a collection saved with that collection in Favorites?

Tom, maybe I expressed myself not clear enough - what I wanted to say is this:
If we would have smart collections (we don't have them yet) I wouldn't change the order of its content (as is possible now inside the portfolio collections as you have explained).

I have never changed the pictures order inside a dynamic query (nor inside a portfolio collection), so I can't say if it's being kept inside the favorites - I will give it a try, but would be surprised, if it does.

[vlad]

Harald, thanks for replying and giving us insights into your user profile and expectations. I understand where you're coming from and I don't find your comments negative at all. I think some users (myself included) are bold enough to advance some "wild" ideas or features exactly because they are confident in Hert's ability to consider and implement them without rocking the boat, just as you said. (As some recent examples, think of the new collection tabs or the new Catalog->All view in PSU V3: to me, these features have added significant value without rocking the boat.)

Tom raised some interesting points, indeed. I realize the ability to manually sort the thumbnails in portfolio collections is important and there's absolutely no suggestion about dropping it from existing collections. However, let's be realistic: manual sorting is probably incompatible with the smart collections proposed here. I, for one, imagine it could be too much headache (and would likely bring about a performance penalty) to reliably maintain a manual order once a dynamic query is rerun. But I don't see any problem with the manual sorting being available only in the "static" collections, especially since the content of a smart collection could be copied and "frozen" at any time to such a collection.

Once we agree that there must be some notable differences between smart collections and existing portfolio collections, the question of whether to mix them together or to create a dedicated catalog category (smart portfolios?) for smart collections becomes valid. Personally, I don't have a strong preference at this point, although I'm still inclined to think that mixing them together might be neat. (If included in the Portfolio hierarchy, smart collections should be visually distinct, to avoid any confusion about their nature.)

We can also select which version we want to have selected in any version set that is included in a portfolio collection.

Could someone please explain this?

[Mke]

Once we agree that there must be some notable differences between smart collections and existing portfolio collections, the question of whether to mix them together or to create a dedicated catalog category (smart portfolios?) for smart collections becomes valid. Personally, I don't have a strong preference at this point, although I'm still inclined to think that mixing them together might be neat. (If included in the Portfolio hierarchy, smart collections should be visually distinct, to avoid any confusion about their nature.)

I don't see a reason to require them to be separate; the user could then put them into mixed or separate portfolios as they wish. However (unlike the iTunes equivalents, which all look identical) I do think it would be worth visually distinguishing which is which to avoid confusion - different icons, perhaps.

We can also select which version we want to have selected in any version set that is included in a portfolio collection.

Could someone please explain this?

In a collection, the main 'album display' version is the default image for the version set. However you can click on any other version (to make it visible) and PSU will display that version in future (instead of the 'album display' version) unless and until you change it. I think that's Tom's talking about.

[vlad]

OFF-TOPIC

In a collection, the main 'album display' version is the default image for the version set. However you can click on any other version (to make it visible) and PSU will display that version in future (instead of the 'album display' version) unless and until you change it.

Ah, I see. Yet, you can't change the displayed version for multiple images (version sets) at a time, can you? Is there already a Mantis request for this?

[tstoddard]

vlad wrote:

tstoddard wrote:We can also select which version we want to have selected in any version set that is included in a portfolio collection.


Could someone please explain this?


In a collection, the main 'album display' version is the default image for the version set. However you can click on any other version (to make it visible) and PSU will display that version in future (instead of the 'album display' version) unless and until you change it. I think that's Tom's talking about.

Actually, I believe that the "main" version is the default version, not the "album display" version. Portfolio collections do allow us to select one of the other versions and that selection will be remembered between sessions just like the sort order will be remembered. In my opinion, one of the shortcomings of version sets, is that a version can't be the main version and also have a place holder assigned to it.

Edit (correction): The version that is displayed in a portfolio collection is the version that was selected at the time the version set was added to the collection, which could be the "main" version or the "album display" version or some other version. I should have tested this before I posted, Sorry!

This raises and old issue related to version sets in general. PSU's treatment of version sets as single entities can be limiting at times. What I mean by that is that once I put an image into a version set, I have limited access to it while it remains in that set. Hert has done a lot to compensate for this issue but in portfolio collections that limit can not be overcome. For example, If I have a raw file and two jpegs in a version set and I want both jpegs to be displayed in a portfolio collection, I can't do that. I have had to destroy version sets for this very reason. I might have one version that I've rendered in black and white and one in color, or I may have 2 versions that are cropped very differently and I want them both to be displayed in my collection. I think this is a reasonably realistic scenario. Portfolio collections are commonly used to manage online collections like those on Flickr or to create slide shows. In those instances, it is not unlikely that a user would want to upload or view in a slideshow more than one of the files in a version set. This has been discussed, ad nauseam, in some older posts but I think it is relevant to a discussion about the behavior of portfolio collections because of the scenario I've described above.

Suffice it to say, that the ability to select a specific version in a version set to be displayed in a portfolio collection is a very helpful feature.

[vlad]

Actually, I believe that the "main" version is the default version, not the "album display" version. Portfolio collections do allow us to select one of the other versions and that selection will be remembered between sessions just like the sort order will be remembered. In my opinion, one of the shortcomings of version sets, is that a version can't be the main version and also have a place holder assigned to it.

I think of the main version as a special kind of placeholder (i.e., the version preferred for display and metadata handling). But if a version could have multiple placeholders - which doesn't seem unreasonable, if we regard placeholders as version-specific labels - then how could it be ensured that only one version per set is the main version (displayed by default)? Perhaps the main version needs to be exclusive indeed, or perhaps the concept could be dropped altogether (not sure how). For all its limits, the current implementation of placeholders has the merit of relative simplicity. (For the record, I think it would have been even simpler if exactly one placeholder was required per version - I don't quite understand why versions without placeholders are allowed or needed.)

This raises and old issue related to version sets in general. PSU's treatment of version sets as single entities can be limiting at times. What I mean by that is that once I put an image into a version set, I have limited access to it while it remains in that set.

FYI, yesterday I submitted a proposal aiming to improve the access to different versions via some kind of version filtering - see my notes added to ticket 2525. (For the record, I dag into Mantis and my proposal could be considered a slimmed-down version of ticket 1746, sumbitted one year ago by David Grundy. David's proposal is more detailed, complex and thought-out - mine is focused on relative simplicity.)

For example, If I have a raw file and two jpegs in a version set and I want both jpegs to be displayed in a portfolio collection, I can't do that. I have had to destroy version sets for this very reason. I might have one version that I've rendered in black and white and one in color, or I may have 2 versions that are cropped very differently and I want them both to be displayed in my collection. I think this is a reasonably realistic scenario.

To achieve this, I'm thinking that a new action could be added to the context menu for one or more thumbs in the collection viewer (or, even better, implemnted via true visual stacks): Expand the Entire Version Set(s). (N.B.: this would be different than "Show more From this Version Set" (Ctrl+Alt+V), which no longer displays other images from the current collection.) Then, in a ("static") portfolio collection you could manually remove the versions that you do NOT want displayed. From then on, the portfolio collection would remember exactly the same content, which may include multiple versions of the same image. That's just a rough idea - what do you think?

Portfolio collections are commonly used to manage online collections like those on Flickr or to create slide shows. In those instances, it is not unlikely that a user would want to upload or view in a slideshow more than one of the files in a version set. This has been discussed, ad nauseam, in some older posts

Perhaps it could help if more users posted votes or comments to Mantis - for all the discussions and complaints in the forum, I haven't encountered a versioning ticket that has attracted significant feedback. (Maybe I overlooked it.)

but I think it is relevant to a discussion about the behavior of portfolio collections because of the scenario I've described above.

Agreed. And, getting back to smart collections, I don't think setting specific versions for specific images would be needed (read: worth implementing) there either - the focus should be on dynamic content. However, if versioning filters were to be implemented at some point, they could be used in smart collections and dynamic searches. (As a matter of fact, favorites and dynamic searches can already use version placeholders - but the view for the current collection cannot be easily filtered.)

[tstoddard]

For example, If I have a raw file and two jpegs in a version set and I want both jpegs to be displayed in a portfolio collection, I can't do that. I have had to destroy version sets for this very reason. I might have one version that I've rendered in black and white and one in color, or I may have 2 versions that are cropped very differently and I want them both to be displayed in my collection. I think this is a reasonably realistic scenario.

To achieve this, I'm thinking that a new action could be added to the context menu for one or more thumbs in the collection viewer (or, even better, implemnted via true visual stacks): Expand the Entire Version Set(s). (N.B.: this would be different than "Show more From this Version Set" (Ctrl+Alt+V), which no longer displays other images from the current collection.) Then, in a ("static") portfolio collection you could manually remove the versions that you do NOT want displayed. From then on, the portfolio collection would remember exactly the same content, which may include multiple versions of the same image. That's just a rough idea - what do you think?

What I would prefer to have is this: A static portfolio collection should be a collection of specific files. If one of those files is a member of a version set, the version tabs should be visible, providing a clue that there are other versions of that file, but all of the tabs except the one for the selected version should be grayed out so that the user can see that the file is in a version set but only the individual file that was added to the portfolio collection is visible and active in that collection. If two versions from the same version set are added to the collection, then there should be two thumbnails visible, each with it's own tab selected but all other tabs grayed out. If the user wants to see other versions so that other versions can be selected and added to the collection then they could select view others from this version set and the others should open in a new tab where they can be selected and added to the portfolio collection.

I guess I need to enter this as a feature request in mantis. Thanks for helping me come up with the idea. Your request is interesting and worth consideration but I would have to give that some additional thought. I don't always use place holders and your suggestions seem to be somewhat dependent on place holders. One of the reasons I don't rely on place holders in my version sets is that I often create multiple versions to allow for different crop ratios and zooms. I don't find place holders very helpful in identifying those variances and I could end up with multiple versions in a set that have no place holder assigned.

Also, the "main" place holder is exclusive so you can't have a main version with any other place holder assigned to it. So, for example, if I have an image where my main version is black and white, and I have a place holder for black and white images, and I want to filter my collection to include black and white images using the place holder as a filter, that black and white image that is my main version would get filtered out of that collection. This opens a whole new can of worms. I have suggested in the past that the "main" specification should be separate from placeholders. In other words, it should just be a flag that is set on one of the members of a version and place holders should be assignable to any of the versions including the main version. This would obviously require a structural change in PSU's data schema though, so I doubt Hert is open to considering that. The work around for the example I'm using here would be to create a duplicate file and add it to the version set so that I could have one copy as the main version and one copy with the black and white place holder assigned.

As you can see, any discussion of version set strategies can go on forever. I am resigned to let Hert decide how it will work. He has accommodated many of our requests very graciously in the past and I, personally, am satisfied, overall, with the way version sets are currently implemented except for the situation with portfolio collections.

[Mke]

Since the conversation here has turned back towards portfolios, and at the risk of continuing the conversation in two places, it might be worth me posting a section of the comment that I've just added to Mantis ticket 2525, which looks similar to your suggestion, Tom:

• ...in collections, one solution might be that right-clicking on a version tab could be used to open up a duplicate of the version set, with the clicked version being the version on display. You could do that for several versions in the set, or for none (selecting them in bulk, for speed). Right-clicking again would remove the duplicate set from view.

[jstartin]

(For the record, I think it would have been even simpler if exactly one placeholder was required per version - I don't quite understand why versions without placeholders are allowed or needed.)

I suppose we all see things differently. I don't really know why "placeholders" (silly term in my opinion) continue to exist in PSU since they don't really do anything. In my world "Main" = best "take" on the file (for now); other "versions" = original file (whether raw or jpeg), other "takes" ( crops, renderings, monochrome conversions etc) worth keeping. My practices are not constrained tightly enough to be able to have a workable list of consistent placeholders; there is simply the version I prefer and other versions that I choose to keep.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't really know why "placeholders" (silly term in my opinion) continue to exist in PSU since they don't really do anything.

I don't think that's true. As an example, I believe the Print placeholder affects stuff going on under the hood.

[tstoddard]

I believe the Print placeholder affects stuff going on under the hood.

If that's true, it's a really well kept secret.

I do agree that it is not fair to say that they do nothing. If that was true then you could say the same of star ratings and color tags. Placeholders allow you to filter collections. I may not be a big fan of using them but I wouldn't say that they are totally useless.

[vlad]

Tom, Mke, Jim: thank you all for the explanations and feedback on versioning. I encourage you to enter any concrete ideas as Mantis tickets (or notes to existing tickets), since Hert has made it clear that's what he uses as input for planning future updates and versions.

I don't really know why "placeholders" (silly term in my opinion) continue to exist in PSU since they don't really do anything.

Well, they allow you to see and select multiple images (in different version sets) with the same placeholder (using Catalog -> By Version Placeholder). I can't see any other use either, but I'm thinking that's a good use. (It is not important for me at the moment, since all I care for now is to distinguish between JPG and RAW files - which I could do by file type, anyway - but who knows, it might be down the line.)

In my world "Main" = best "take" on the file (for now); other "versions" = original file (whether raw or jpeg), other "takes" ( crops, renderings, monochrome conversions etc) worth keeping. My practices are not constrained tightly enough to be able to have a workable list of consistent placeholders; there is simply the version I prefer and other versions that I choose to keep.

Just curious: don't you ever need to see multiple monochrome files at once? How do you do that, if not viewing them by version placeholder? Do you use a label or some kind of metadata for this? (If they are already in a seperate portfolio, I'm going to ask how did you group them there?)

P.S. Although I enjoy the discussion, I feel slightly uncomfortable that the focus has shifted away from the original subject (dynamic or smart collections), which I'd really like to gain traction. Apologies to the OP for my part in shifting the focus - but rest assured I'll further support smart collections once the request is submitted to Mantis. (It's almost like some kind of forum "law" is emerging: no matter on which topic a thread starts, the longer it gets the greater are the chances it's all going to be about versioning! )

[vlad]

I don't really know why "placeholders" (silly term in my opinion) continue to exist in PSU since they don't really do anything.

I don't think that's true. As an example, I believe the Print placeholder affects stuff going on under the hood.

Mike: don't quote me on that, please - I didn't say it!

[Mike Buckley]

Mike: don't quote me on that, please - I didn't say it!

Yikes! Thanks for catching my mistake. I've now corrected my post.

[freudenthaler]

Was busy the last day for some hw-upgrade. Bought myself an early christmas present - laaaaarge monitor & new graphics card to support the new resolution - WOW, that makes sense for PSu and my eyes! Can now see 14 images in a row at 100% thumbnail resolution

The ability to arbitrarily arrange files inside a collection is a great feature...

Gave it a try...

• I tried to use some manual sorting inside a collection, since I wasn't aware of this feature. Well, my "intuitive appraoch" for rearranging by dragging a picture with the mouse and dropping it between two other oictures didn't work. I thought it could be that easy like reorder slides in eg. Powerpoint.
• Tried Ctrl + cursor left/right on a selected image inside a collection and got a message "you can not change the position while the collection is displayed hierarchical"? Anybody who can "translate" this to me?
• Restarted PSu, same collection, tried again with Ctrl + cursor left, dialog appeared, asking me, if I want to set the order manually? Made me curious, what's happening. The dialog also mentioned something with "no sorting". I realized, that the pictures inside the collection didn't showed up in my defined "custom thumbnail style", instead they were displayed normally. Changed that back and opened another collection ->
• message "you can not change the position while the collection is displayed hierarchical" popped up again? Changed the view style and the sorting (to no sorting) and tried again -> made no difference -> ??? I'm lost! What was the difference before that enabled manual ordering?
• tried it inside the image basket -> worked; switche back to the collection -> reordering worked
• searched the forum & found this thread http://forum.idimager.com/viewtopic.php ... nual+order. D & D should also work - fine. Opened the image basket an gave it a try, worked!

So, hoping to get an answer concerning the "..displayed hierarchical"-message, which prevents manual reordering in a collection. Anyone else noticed such a strange behaviour? If I can reproduce it, I will enter this in the bug-tracker.

I also came across PSu's possibility to vertically resize the left panels containing favorites & dynamic search - hurray! No more need to scroll to see all my stores queries.

As it seem that there aren't any more suggestions concerning "smart collections" I will add a request in Mantis. Thanks to all for the valueable comments & annotations in this thread.

Update 2014-11-16: feature wish added in mantis