Stacking with Attributes

[sinus]

Hi,
Stacking is really a fine thing, declutters the window from a lot of thumbs, holds images from the same event together, and so on.

I am interested in Auto-stacking, with Attributes.

Say, I have an attributes, called "stacking".
Now, I could give an event a name in the Attributes, say "shooting".
Another event I name "mountains"
And a third "flowers".

Now I can simply select all image in the file-window (to select only these files would be cumbersombe) and let run the auto-stacking with the variable

{File.AT.Image.Stacking}

Like a miracle all files with the same Attributes will be in a stack, if there are only 2 or 5'000 images. GREAT!

But I have the problem, that with this variable also all images without any attributes will be stacked. I guess, IM 5 think "ok, there are 10'000 images without an entry in the attribute "stacking", so they are the same, hence they must be stacked".

But of course I want only see stacked the files, what HAVE really an attributes-entry, not an empty one.

Is this possible, maybe with something like formating? I tried, but without success.

BTW, with this system I could give every stack even a name, what I could put then into the "blue icon" on each thumb, I could hoover over the thumb and see the stacking - name of each thumb. (if it is not possible, then at least I could see the name in an app).

Of course I see more possibilities of this fine stacking-feature, like give the stackings automatically an increasing number (maybe with a variable, entered into the Attributes) ... IMatch never ends with its possibilities 

[Mario]

When you stack by a variable, IMatch first determines how many unique values there are (including the empty value) and then stacks images for each the resulting groups. You can use variable formatting functions to replace the empty value with something, but then all files without a value will just end up in another stack. I would have to add an option like "Don't stack files with empty variable". This would be a feature request and I suggest you copy/paste your request into a new feature request.

[sinus]

When you stack by a variable, IMatch first determines how many unique values there are (including the empty value) and then stacks images for each the resulting groups. You can use variable formatting functions to replace the empty value with something, but then all files without a value will just end up in another stack. I would have to add an option like "Don't stack files with empty variable". This would be a feature request and I suggest you copy/paste your request into a new feature request.

Thanks Mario,
I will do so (feature request), because, if this works really, then this feature (the auto-stack with a field of attributes) would be really great.

Then I could really use the auto-stacking, if I want an event stacked, I must only add for all images from this event a name in the attribute.
(the headline would be also a good thing, but sometimes the headline has different entries, even with the same event.

And with a field from the attributes I could also auto-stacking images from different events.

I love stacking! 

[Richard]

Hi Markus,

I would like to learn why you want to use Attributes as a means of grouping images rather than Categories.

[Darius1968]

I'm not the expert, here, but it would seem sinus would want to use an attribute over the category for stacking because he wants to have groups of stacks by the event of a photo shoot, or whatever.  Attributes are like the properties of IMatch 3.6, and hence, the name of an event like "Planets night at Heinz Hall, 2009", or "The sunsets, 'Good 'N Plenty', and 'Good 'N Fruity' on the June Summer Evening, 2012", which sinus would enter into his attribute called "stacking' are simply names of an event that fit much better into an attribute than a category.  Categories are more for general things than specific things. 

[Richard]

Categories are more for general things than specific things.

In IMatch 3 I used Properties for things that would relate to just one or a few images. Whereas Categories were used when many images shared a common thing. But it appears to me that Markus wants to use the same attribute for hundreds or even thousands of files. That seems more general than specific and that is the reason behind my question.

[Erik]

I'm not sure Markus plans on using lost of images,

But I could see value in having his feature for Panoramas or if you do a lot of shoots 100's or more.  The utility depends on the user.

With respect to his request, I know that with Data-Driven Categories, we can easily filter out or not include specific values including blanks.  In some ways stacks are like categories, so there is a fine line between them.  The nice thing with stacks is that when they are collapsed, you still have one image working at least as a place holder.

[Richard]

Stacks are somewhat of a different topic from Attributes. There are many ways to create a stack and I would think that the date and time would be the easy way to create stacks for a shoot. Almost any means of creating a grouping of images can be used to create a stack. Some automatically.

In addition to stacking files manually, you can let IMatch stack your files automatically. To do this, run Commands > Relations > Auto-stack Files or from the context menu in the file window. If you use the command from the Commands menu, IMatch will automatically stack all files in the currently selected folder, category, collection or time line. To auto-stack selected files in the file window, use the command from the context menu of the file window.

[sinus]

Thanks, Darius1968, Richard and Erik

Coming just back from a photoshooting, I see your answers, cool.

SORRY, but just now I have not the time to answer, I must go again ... and it gives me time, to think about your answers! 

I will answer as soon as possible ... have a nice evening (it is now 18.07 here)

[Erik]

Stacks are somewhat of a different topic from Attributes. There are many ways to create a stack and I would think that the date and time would be the easy way to create stacks for a shoot. Almost any means of creating a grouping of images can be used to create a stack. Some automatically.

In addition to stacking files manually, you can let IMatch stack your files automatically. To do this, run Commands > Relations > Auto-stack Files or from the context menu in the file window. If you use the command from the Commands menu, IMatch will automatically stack all files in the currently selected folder, category, collection or time line. To auto-stack selected files in the file window, use the command from the context menu of the file window.

I think his point was that he can (I haven't checked it myself) create stacks automatically using attributes as the program works now.  I'm not sure how it's set up, but perhaps he sets some type of ID for an attribute that is common to the files, say for a shoot, and then lets the program autostack.  The problem comes when the attribute doesn't have a value.

In my own workflow, I have an attribute set up to help identify files that are part of a panorama or HDR image.  In my case, the attribute field is just filled with the file name for the final composite image.  In the process of setting that attribute, I usually manually stack the group of images.  Autostacking for panoramas or HDR images based on time  doesn't work too well because the time between images isn't very constant especially if long exposures are involved.  I've tested the feature in IMatch and even LR once before, and I inevitably end up with photos missing their stacks or getting lost because the inadvertently get stuck in a stack they aren't intended for.  Of course, that's just for my workflow.  I personally have no issue just stacking by hand, but I would suppose autostacking for my own attribute could have allowed me to get where I am at now, faster assuming that the attribute had already been filled (i.e. coming from IM 3.6 via a property) and I was trying to make my migration to IM5 more economical. 

[sinus]

Hi Markus,

I would like to learn why you want to use Attributes as a means of grouping images rather than Categories.

Still thinking ... 

Richard, to start with this: I want use stacking for not cluttering the window. I will use Attributes (like in 3.6 properties), I would create a field, specialy for stacking.

If this field is empty: no stacking.
If the field has a value (like panorama, x-mas, shooting, new york times, ....), than all images with this entry would stacked automatically.
Time-stacking does not help, because some events are at different times, like easter at morning, during the day another shooting, in the evening again easter-related.

I want also stacking other documents like word and so on (do not know, if it works, but I guess yes).

Some stacking will have only 10 images (a product in the studio), others about 500 images (marriage). And between.
But if I make here and there some pics ... these pics will be not stacked.

I must thinking more about stacking by categories.
If I understand you correct, you mean, I could enter a category-variable and let then this autostacking??

I thought about manually stacking (what would be not a problem), but IF autostacking would work well and stable, then this autostacking would be a great thing.

[Richard]

If I understand you correct, you mean, I could enter a category-variable and let then this autostacking??

I am not suggesting how stacking can be achieved. I am just wondering why you looked at Attributes to meet your needs. As with so many tasks in IMatch, we have several means of achieving a goal and I like to know why one means is chosen over others.

[sinus]

If I understand you correct, you mean, I could enter a category-variable and let then this autostacking??

I am not suggesting how stacking can be achieved. I am just wondering why you looked at Attributes to meet your needs. As with so many tasks in IMatch, we have several means of achieving a goal and I like to know why one means is chosen over others.

Because, what other should I choose, to achieve a stack?

Exif and GPS-Timestamp does not fit, because GPS changes and time also. As I pointed out in my last post, this does not work.

DocumentID property, to be honest, I do not know exactly, what it is, but I am quite sure, that this would not fit also.

Hence, if I want auto-stacking, only Variables does remain.
So what variables?

Stuff like DateTime, Folder/s, Dot, bpp, pins does not fit.

What could fit, I think, is the filename, if I format it (like take only a part of the name), but then I can not add other images, say for a project to stack several images for a report.

A field like headline or caption is the same to say like with the filename. If I want add other images, from another event with different fields, it does not fit.

I could find, maybe, another field in the metadata, what I could use for this. But what field?

Hence there is only a category or Attributes, as far as I can see.

But for this I must add the files to a category, first. Or let do it by keywords. Or by a data-driven category.
But to be honest, I do not trust data-driven completely and I think, if I have to much data-driven cats, it could slow down the process.

So I thought at Attributes.
They are the follower of properties in IM3.x and they worked VERY well for me. I trust them.
Hence I trust Attributes in IM 5.

And, I think, it is easy to add a field in Attributes, what I do "relates" for auto-stacking.
Say, I do make some pictures with cheese in my studio (what I do acutally).

So, I want add them to cats like "Emmentaler", "Greyerzer", "Parmesan" and so on. And I will have a parent-cat, say named "cheese".

But from each chease I have maybe 100 images. If I search or go into the cat "cheese" or somehing like this, it would be fine, to have not cluttered my file window with cheese  but have neatly, say 20 thumbs on screen, each stacked and behind each stack are the, say, 100 images.

So, if I have an Attribute, like a field "for stacking", I could simply add entries like the name of the cheese and they would automaticall, magically, stacked together. If I make the next day more images, I can even add them simply by adding the same Attribute-entry.

I DO NOT KNOW, if this would work, like I think now, but like Erik noted (and Mario), the problem is, if I have empty entries in this Attributes-field, then these images will be stacked too.
What I do not want.

Hence my feature request, simply to add only entries, what are filled, to take not empty fields.

We must remember, that (I think) stacking is specially made for not cluttering the window, because otherwise, categories could do almost the same.

If you find this a curious or stupid idea, do not hesitate, to write this, because I did not try this out in real, maybe another workflow is much better.

Finally, also manually stacking is no problem, easy to make, but if it would work automatically, and if this would be stable, then this would be a good thing for me.

[sinus]

I think his point was that he can (I haven't checked it myself) create stacks automatically using attributes as the program works now.  I'm not sure how it's set up, but perhaps he sets some type of ID for an attribute that is common to the files, say for a shoot, and then lets the program autostack.  The problem comes when the attribute doesn't have a value.

Exactly, Erik!
BTW, also for panoramic pics or simply for each "theme" what we want stack together, this would be a good thing.

[sinus]

I'm not the expert, here, but it would seem sinus would want to use an attribute over the category for stacking because he wants to have groups of stacks by the event of a photo shoot, or whatever.  Attributes are like the properties of IMatch 3.6, and hence, the name of an event like "Planets night at Heinz Hall, 2009", or "The sunsets, 'Good 'N Plenty', and 'Good 'N Fruity' on the June Summer Evening, 2012", which sinus would enter into his attribute called "stacking' are simply names of an event that fit much better into an attribute than a category.  Categories are more for general things than specific things.

Yes, Darius, I thougt the same.
Categories are really GREAT, but the do not "decluttering" the file-window. Stacks can do this.

If I have a cat called "The sunsets", all 500 images will be shown.
With stacks I can end with only 1 file, neatly stacked together.

And - the real power could be to combine both, cats and stacking.

[sinus]

Categories are more for general things than specific things.

In IMatch 3 I used Properties for things that would relate to just one or a few images. Whereas Categories were used when many images shared a common thing. But it appears to me that Markus wants to use the same attribute for hundreds or even thousands of files. That seems more general than specific and that is the reason behind my question.

In reality, I think, I will end up with stacking with 20 images or also 500 images. But the average for a stack will be about 40 - 150 images, I think.

[sinus]

The nice thing with stacks is that when they are collapsed, you still have one image working at least as a place holder.

So that is exacty this, what I call "decluttering" the file window.
If I make a shooting with Claudia, Michael and Doreen, all individual, it is fine to see on screen only 3 images, stacked, and hidden each "placeholder" (the top of the stack) are, say 100 images.

With categories, I would see always all 100 image for each.

[Richard]

 

if I have empty entries in this Attributes-field, then these images will be stacked too.

Could you search for files with an empty Attributes field and enter something like "empty" in all of them?

If I have a cat called "The sunsets", all 500 images will be shown.
With stacks I can end with only 1 file, neatly stacked together.

So select the "Sunsets" category, select all the images with the image you want on top last and press Shift+S. They are now stacked.

[sinus]

if I have empty entries in this Attributes-field, then these images will be stacked too.

Could you search for files with an empty Attributes field and enter something like "empty" in all of them?

Hi Richard, thanks, but it is now not more necessary, because Mario has solved the problem. Cool.
https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=2658.0

If I have a cat called "The sunsets", all 500 images will be shown.
With stacks I can end with only 1 file, neatly stacked together.

So select the "Sunsets" category, select all the images with the image you want on top last and press Shift+S. They are now stacked.

Yes, but not automatically.

And, say, you want make a big report for a historical book. You can now of course "work" with categories. But if you have a lot of images in a cat, like 300, it could be a bit difficult. With stacking you COULD stack some images for this project together, like images of persons, or from a country or what ever.

So the cat with this project would be there, but insteas show 300 images, you see, say 10 images, stacked and neatly have persons, historical food, 3 cities and so on.

Or, very important, what, if you want add some documents or images, what are not related to a category? If we work with both, categories and stacking, I think, we have the advantages of both.

The project from above I could solve with only stacking, without categories. Simply add images or documents or music to the stack, named in the Attributes.

Doing the same only with categories and subcategories will also work, but if you do not create a lot of subcategories, you will have sometimes quite a lot of thumbs on screen ... what is not bad of course, but sometimes (for me) a bit annoying.

I made a book, for example, with about 500 images and documents to deal with, I made it (in 3.6) with categories ... and could imagine, that if I had the possibilites to stack, it had helped a lot.

But only real work, I guess, will show me, if it helps or not.

[Richard]

Mario has solved the problem.

While I was writing about a work-around to a problem Mario was solving the problem and he was faster. 

It is not always possible but when a Category has more than 100 images assigned, I start thinking of child-categories to use to split the parent category. With stacking I would also tend to think along those lines so I could see all images in a stack without a lot of scrolling or hitting [Page Down] many times. Since the number of thumbnails that can be seen at one time will vary with thumbnail size, layout, and monitor size this would vary for each user.

[Erik]

The key to what Markus is looking for is decluttering.

Categories don't necessarily do that unless of course you manually stack images as was hinted at in one of the alternative responses. 

As a side thought, I'm not sure there would be much success if a user tried to stack images on a by category basis (stack all the images in a category) because I'm fairly certain images can't end up in multiple stacks, which would have to happen since most people throw images into multiple categories.  Anyway, I'm somewhat glad the issue has been addressed because I have essentially been using an attribute as Markus has only I had been using manual stacks. This feature would have made things much simpler (and will in the future).  I shoot a lot of panoramas and bracketed shots for HDR.

[Richard]

I'm fairly certain images can't end up in multiple stacks

They can't. If you have pictures of churches in a Church category and stack them but you also assign them to locations, you can not stack locations. If you do it will remove the church pictures from the prior stack.

It doesn't matter much how a user assembles a group of file to stack. Categories, Collections, Keywords, Attributes and more can do the job. Let's say that under People I have a child-category for Mary. I am sure that I could make it automatic that files assigned to Mary get stacked. If I open the Mary Category I will have only the top image shown. No real gain but when I open the People category I will have one image for Mary, one for Tom, one for Dick, one for Harry and one for Jane. Neat, uncluttered and easy to find images of John when I remember what he looks like but can not think of his name. Not a good example but you get my point.

[sinus]

Let's say that under People I have a child-category for Mary. I am sure that I could make it automatic that files assigned to Mary get stacked. If I open the Mary Category I will have only the top image shown. No real gain but when I open the People category I will have one image for Mary, one for Tom, one for Dick, one for Harry and one for Jane. Neat, uncluttered and easy to find images of John when I remember what he looks like but can not think of his name. Not a good example but you get my point.

If I have a category, like you write above, a child-cat "Mary".
Say Mary is a woman, what are a relative of me. I have photographs of here on x-mas, in a studio-shooting, on a birthday, on a hiking-tour and so on.

Hence I want NOT, that I see ALL Mary-images in her Category, say 300 images.
But I want, that there are 10 stacks, the top (or the infos in the metadata or in the filename ...) shows an image, what I can see (usually) immediately, what this is for an event.

So, if I open the Mary-Cat, I see 10 Marys, neatly stacked. If I am interested in one specific event, I can expand that stack.

This I call (I believe, the IM-help does also) an uncluttered file-window.

Of course, I could work with sub-sub-categories. But for me this would be a bit cumbersome, also for simply look at the images.  (and let it do automatically, I do not know, how).

If I let the do the automatic-stacking by an attribute, this is an easy job. And convenient to add or remove more images to a stack: simply change the attribute-field.

But, as I said somewhere, I did not really try out, this is only theoretically of me, but I am quite sure, that I will do so, except IM would be very slow.