Categories for folders

[Lord_Helmchen]

This is a feature request based on this thread.

I have several steps in my workflow: culling, geo tagging, content detection, raw development, tagging with keywords. Several of them are done outside of IMatch (e.g. culling or raw development).

When I import photos I have a "bulk oriented" workflow, where is usually process on a project/folder base my workflow Sometimes I process all steps for one on folder in a row, sometimes I do culling in multiple folders and other steps later.

IMatch has very sophisticated possibilities to assign ratings, labels, keywords etc. to photos/files. But there is very limited support to assign e.g. categories to folders. When I'm in the "bulk workflow", for me assigning workflow categories to files doesn't help much (I tried this for years and it didn't work for me). I need an overview which folder have to be processed. And looking at a category to see files from many different folders is no help for me.

This is the description of my problem from the linked thread:

Let me describe differently how my workflow goes: I neither go process one folder completely with all steps (from Culling to Developing) nor to all similar tasks for all folders (e.g. Culling for all folders, then Rating for all Folders etc.). This may very by number of photos (process the Sunsets just between some other things, but for Family Holiday I need some more time) or urgency of finish development (e.g. Portrait for Company).

So virtually I have a table containing all "not fully processed" folders:
You cannot view this attachment.

When I want to work in my workflow, look the the list of folders (not photos!) and decide where to start which task (depending on criteria I mentioned above). Then I process the whole folder for one or more tasks, maybe next folder again for some tasks.

When I could assign each task to a folder, it is easy to have the overview.

XMP and IMatch work an photo level. Yes, I could very granularity assign the workflow states and have color coding (that's what I do for I think 10y in IMatch).

The problem I have is the following: How can I easily see which folder (of course in reality all files) have which open workflow steps open?

• I have to click on each folder and see which categories / color code are set. So I have to clock through all folders.
• I select the category for Culling. But I don't to Culling in IMatch. So I have then to identify which files are in which folder. Same for Rating, Content Detection, Development etc.

So neither of the current ways are convenient. So I implemented a "folder based" workflow: I do this my moving the photos from one main folder to the next. But that leads to the situation, that I couldn't represent all different combination of the open workflow tasks. E.g. Geo Tagging won't become an own main folder, because that usually goes very quick. But perhaps I have to do the tagging manually, I decide to to this later. And then I may forget this...

Therefore a way to assign multiple stats at same time to a folder would be very helpful (as you see a logic like for labels won't work). Or possible "virtual main folders", where I see:
Workflow | Culling

• Zoo with Friends
• Family Holiday
• Sunset Hamburg
• Portrait for Company

Workflow | Geo Tagging

• Family Holiday
• Portrait for Company

etc.

I have no clue how many other users have the same problem, but I sometimes have many folders in my backlog and loose the overview about which tasks are still open, as my folder based workflow is not detailed enough.

If you think having some sort of categories or something similar please like this feature request.

[stefanjan2]

I'd like to be able to see at a glance, folders where certain workflow steps have been completed and where work still required e.g. culling, description, location, keywords

[Mario]

You know about the Workflow Category hierarchy?
You can use it directly to see which files need which work. Or use it to filter folders so only the files which need work remain visible.

Culled files are no longer in the database (usually) so all files in the database are considered as un-culled.
You can assign new files to a category or collection to indicate them as candidates for culling (Edit > Preferences > Indexing) and remove them from the category / collection when you have checked them.

[Lord_Helmchen]

You know about the Workflow Category hierarchy?
You can use it directly to see which files need which work. Or use it to filter folders so only the files which need work remain visible.

It sounds Stefanjan2 is also looking for something on folder level and not of file level. To have the ability to filter on folders is no replacement to have an overview which folders need to be processed. Especially when doing "bulk work" on several folders.

[Mario]

If a user supports your FR, he can just click the Like button or comment accordingly.
If a user wants something else, he can create his own feature request.

Implementing what you need for your particular workflow sounds rather expensive for me to develop.
Just from the top of my head:

- Creating a GUI to add, edit and delete user-defined folder states
- Maintaining the list of user-defined folder states and their properties (e.g. folder color or icon) in the database
- Implementing a GUI to assign a state from a list of user defined states to a folder
- Implementing features to automatically assign a folder state to new or updated folders

- Handling special cases like the user deleting a folder state that is still assigned to folders
- Expand the folder filter to allow filtering for folder states
- Expand the folder search to search for folder states
- Updating the help system, translation etc.
- 10 things I have not thought of yet

All doable of course. If a sufficient number of users would like to have this, I will look into it.

It understand that you progress files in various order and in various folders. And hence you never know for sure which folders contain files which need work or which are finished. Since you don't use XMP labels or a workflow category (I presume?) you cannot quickly filter for files which need work.

I solve that by assigning a color to new folders and resetting that color when the folder is finished.

It is easy to see which files in that folder need work by their color label. Also easy to filter for.
To see all files in my database which are in various states of work, I use the Label collection.
I can go from there to the folder containing the file with the Goto Folder command if needed. But I usually don't process folders, but files, so their physical folder is not important in most steps of my workflow.

[Tveloso]

To have the ability to filter on folders is no replacement to have an overview which folders need to be processed. Especially when doing "bulk work" on several folders.

Just thinking out loud here...but would it help if the Folders Filter had a Show only Folders in Scope checkbox?...(like the Category Filter has)...

That way you could use Workflow Step Categories, and while in say, the Content Detection Category, you could filter for (and see only) those folders that are still in (i.e. have files in) that category.

The opposite is already possible.  If you assigned your files to Workflow Categories, you could select a folder in the Media&Folders View, and see which Workflow Steps that Folder has pending for it.

So instead of the Workflow Stage Categories discussed previously (where IMatch ensures that a file is assigned to only one of a group of sibling categories), you would initially assign your newly indexed files to all of the sibling Workflow Sep Categories, and then in any given category, you could use the Folders Filter to answer the question "which Folders Still need to be processed for this Workflow step?"...(if that filter offered a "show only in scope" option)

[stefanjan2]

Culled files are no longer in the database (usually) so all files in the database are considered as un-culled.

Sorry for the loose terminology. When I reject files, as 99.9% of the time I have the filter set to hide rejected files.
Files I reject as far as I am concerned are  culled.
Every so often I go to the command menu and delete rejected files and write back metadata.

[stefanjan2]

You beat me to it. My workaround has been to save a filter which hides all files that have flag or category I'm interested in.
If I then select a range of folders or the database, in the media & folders view I then see all the folders but only the images I am interested in. If it were possible to filter to exclude empty folders, I imagine a simple change, then I think this would avoid any complex changes to imatch

[Mario]

There is a feature (in the Folder Search Panel) to hide empty folders (or to show only empty folders). But this operates on the actual folder contents, not on "folders with this filter applied").

I'm not adverse to the idea of making folders smarter, but considering the work involved (I'd say 40 - 60 hours (!) in a first estimate) I need to know how many users will have a need for this. So far it's only two users and the FR has only one like.

[stefanjan2]

I'm not adverse to the idea of making folders smarter, but considering the work involved (I'd say 40 - 60 hours (!) in a first estimate) I need to know how many users will have a need for this. So far it's only two users and the FR has only one like.

How about another idea, would it be possible to add an option to the categories tab to allow "Group by folders"? A user could then attach new images using indexing to multiple workflow categories and then choose which category to view in the categories tab and select all in a folder and remove from category once processed.

[Mario]

How about another idea, would it be possible to add an option to the categories tab to allow "Group by folders"? A

That would require substantial changes in how File Windows work. I have something related on my long term to-do list. But never started because a) if would require a lot of work and b) could have an unforeseen consequences performance impact in many areas and c) it was never requested. Or not by the minimal number of users I would expect to even start thinking about this.

Like this feature request, most feature requests never make it, because they are only of interest for 1, 2 or a handful of users.

I understand that the user who posted this FR and you have a very particular workflow. But, probably, most users just process an entire folder and be done with it, never running into the "many files in many folders need work and I need to know which of my folders have unfinished work and a simple-color code for unfinished folders or standard XMP labels don't work for me" problem.

And as I said, I'm, not averse to making folders smarter. Or substantially change how File Windows work. But not when only a handful of users would benefit from it and I have to spent 4 weeks to complete the change.

Tip: It should be easy to create a data-driven category using XMP labels on level 1 and folder names on level 2.
This gives you files in different workflow states, and grouped by folders. Have you considered this?

Just made a quick check. When I create a data-driven category on labels and folders, it works exactly as I suggested above:

You cannot view this attachment.

You see the file for each workflow label. And below that the files group by the folders in which they reside.
I've used color-coding to match the label colors I use, but that's optional.
Would that not work for you?

[stefanjan2]

You see the file for each workflow label. And below that the files group by the folders in which they reside.
I've used color-coding to match the label colors I use, but that's optional.
Would that not work for you?

Yes, I've had a play with that and it would definitely work for me. Thanks for another great solution!

Just a couple of questions:

I can't work out how in a data driven formula to filter level one to just images with blank label. Was able to do it with a formula category but not data driven.

And at the second level, I'm wondering whether it would be possible to have  "D:\Photos Prior Years\1972\1972-04-08 ¦\(10)" display as "1972\1972-04-08 ¦ Paris"

[Mario]

Please don't write your comment into the quote block. This makes it hard to read.

I can't work out how in a data driven formula to filter level one to just images with blank label. Was able to do it with a formula category but not data driven.

Files without tag values (aka "empty labels") are either ignored by data-driven categories or rolled into the Other category. You cannot produce a data-driven category from on-existing tag values.

You can probable produce this using a variable on level one, not sure. Feel free to spend some time experimenting.

Maybe use {File.MD.XMP::xmp\Label\Label|hasvalue:IGNORE;default:No Label} and filter for No Label

You cannot view this attachment.

Note: Variables in data-driven categories are powerful but may be slow.

And at the second level, I'm wondering whether it would be possible to have  "D:\Photos Prior Years\1972\1972-04-08 ¦\(10)" display as "1972\1972-04-08 ¦ Paris"

I used the folder tag, which is fast. I you need special formatting, use the options available for data-driven categories to use part of the value or use a variable and some tricky substr. Feel free to spend some time experimenting.

[stefanjan2]

Tip: It should be easy to create a data-driven category using XMP labels on level 1 and folder names on level 2.

Trying to figure out how to filter a 2 level data driven category to show just images with red label. I can't seem to come up with a filter, @Collection[Label|Red] does not work if I put this in the level 1 category filter. I have read through Help but can't figure this out.

Also tried creating a formula category WORKFLOW|Red and then used this in the level 1 category filter  @All|WORKFLOW|Red but that did not work either.

Would appreciate a hint as to where I'm going wrong.

[Mario]

It is unclear to me what you want to achieve.

When your second level is based on the label tag, all you need to do is to filter for the term Red.
Tag: XMP::xmp\Label\Label\0
Other: off
Filter: Red

You cannot filter for data on higher levels on lower levels.

I think I have donated enough time at this point for your particular use-case. Showing how to create the data-driven category for labels and folders. Coming up with a variable that shows only unlabeled files etc.
I'm sure when you spend a few days learning about data-driven categories, you should be able to come up with a solution that works for you.

[stefanjan2]

It is unclear to me what you want to achieve.

I wanted to achieve something like the attached. So I could work through folders containing images with a red label (new images, unculled).

Happy with the result, many thanks for your help.

Once I have culled all folders I can then think about the next steps in my workflow.

I think I have donated enough time at this point for your particular use-case.

Noted! If I have any more questions, please ignore them and allow someone else in the community to answer. By the way don't you take any time off?

[Lord_Helmchen]

There is a feature (in the Folder Search Panel) to hide empty folders (or to show only empty folders). But this operates on the actual folder contents, not on "folders with this filter applied").

I'm not adverse to the idea of making folders smarter, but considering the work involved (I'd say 40 - 60 hours (!) in a first estimate) I need to know how many users will have a need for this. So far it's only two users and the FR has only one like.

That sounds interesting: having the possibility to hide folders that don't contain photos according to current selected filters. Or possibly not hiding, but showing a color label, red "X" or whatever. or limit this for direct sub folders (not the while hierarchy). This might also be a way to reduce performance issues, if a user opens a huge folder with many sub folders: the color marking shows up folder by folder.

Then I could define filters, that show the workflow steps assigned to each photo (via which way the user prefers it) and even partially finished folders are still visible. So I would have a folder with all "not fully processed" projects an could easily see be filtering which folders need some work.

For me this would fully provide what I'm looking for!