Keyword limitations in LR3?

Hi, I have had the LR3 upgrade installed now for 2 weeks and find that I cannot select some of my keywords from the Keyword List in the righthand panel of the Library page.
I have ~3300 keywords (no hierarchy), ~170k images and am running W7Pro on a PC (i5-750, 4GB).
I can access keywords down to about half way in the Keyword List but after that running the mouse pointer over the keywords does not highlight the keyword. I also cannot see some keywords down in the x,y,z area.
I have been watching Task Manager for the last week and see that LR.exe has been working in the background but this has not increased the number of keywords able to be selected.
I can use the Text search to access the keywords not accessible from the Keyword List.
I had a similar problem in LR2 with a lesser number of keywords but that was solved on moving to W7 (64 bit) and had hoped that there would be no practical limitation but there may be a database limitation.
Any comments or workarounds?
Thanks, Allan.

Have you tried using the scroll wheel on the mouse to navigate the keyword list?
Paure1 wrote:
I have ~3300 keywords (no hierarchy), ~170k images and am running W7Pro on a PC (i5-750, 4GB).
Your Windows 7 appears to be x86 and the memory is 4GB. You may want to switch to Windows 7 x64 and add some more RAM. If you actually have Windows 7 x64, add more RAM.
Also, make sure Lightroom is the only application running so it has the maximum amount of RAM to work in.

Similar Messages

Weird keyword behaviour in LR3

When I click on a keyword down in my list to apply to an image, the panel jumps up to the top level. This is new to 3.0 and unwelcome as there is often a next keyword down the list I want to apply, so I have to scroll down again.
Anyone else seeing this?
John

Have you tried using the scroll wheel on the mouse to navigate the keyword list?
Paure1 wrote:
I have ~3300 keywords (no hierarchy), ~170k images and am running W7Pro on a PC (i5-750, 4GB).
Your Windows 7 appears to be x86 and the memory is 4GB. You may want to switch to Windows 7 x64 and add some more RAM. If you actually have Windows 7 x64, add more RAM.
Also, make sure Lightroom is the only application running so it has the maximum amount of RAM to work in.

Should I Avoid LR4 and Get LR3 Because of My Huge Hierarchical Keyword List?

I abandoned LR2 several years ago because it crashed from my hierarchical list of 12,000 keywords. (Botanical and common names and other terms.) I have been using CS5/Camera Raw/Bridge to manage and edit my images. The hierarchical list is necessary for my stock photo business.
I will soon be needing to compare and edit images for a book publication and gallery show and I am thinking I may need to return to LR so I can work more effciently. I do not care about not exporting some keywords or synonyms etc. I think (right now anyway) that it is fine that all keywords associated with the images get exported for my stock submissions. I ususally check off only the sub-keywords or sub-sub-sub keywords.
Here are my questions:
1) Is LR 3 able to handle my huge list of hierarchical keywords which is now larger than 12,000 words?
2) Should I upgrade to LR3 and not to LR4 to avoid the keyword mess I have been reading about but don't understand very well?
3) Is it possible to even upgrade to LR3 now that LR4 is released?
3) Would LR4 handle my keywords better or worse than LR2? Than LR3?
4) Is there a work efficiency reason to upgrade to CS6 without using any version of LR and continue using Bridge and Camera Raw as I have been?
5) Is there anything else I have not thought to ask? I am somewhat technically challenged and dread learning new software, having been burned in the past with ExpressionsMedia disaster and LR2 which crashed etc.
Thanks for any and all input from the forum!

I try to answer your questions. I also have a large list of hierarchical keywords (funny ... also botanical names) but not as much as you have.
1) I think that Lr3 is able to handle your list of keywords. I have not heard from anybody that there is a limit to the number of keywords that Lr is able to handle.
2) There seem to be some keyword issues in Lr4. My keywords were perfectly fine in Lr3 but after upgrading to Lr4 some of my keywords were not populated, meaning that the keywords themselves were listed in the keyword list but the image count showed 0. I still have my Lr3 catalog so was able to check (with Lr3) that, indeed, in Lr3 all the keywords in question were populated with the correct number of images. Fortunately there were not too many of these not-populated keywords, so I corrected the issue manually.
Since correct keywords are mandatory for your stock business, you are right in hesitating to upgrade to Lr4. In my opinion, the improvements that Lr4 offers over Lr3 are mainly in areas that are - probably - not so important to a stock business: improvements in the Develop Module and new Process Version, the Book Module, the map Module. On the other hand I would think that image management is paramount for you and in this area Lr4 is not much different than Lr3.
3) You will not be able to get an upgrade to Lr3 from Adobe now that Lr4 has been released. So you had to find a 3rd party vendor (B&H? Amazon?) who still sells Lr3.
4) Apart from the issue described above, I don't see any difference in keyword handling between Lr3 and Lr4. Lr2 is too far back for me - I don't remember.
5) My suggestion for you would be: You have to upgrade at some point. The longer you wait, the more difficult the transition will be because the differences of future versions to Lr2 will become greater. Since at the moment version 4.1 is in the works (there have been two RCs (Release candidates) of version 4.1 already), maybe it would be wise to wait until the final 4.1 version is out. maybe the keyword issues have been fixed.
6) You can "upgrade" to Lr4 and still have Lr2 on your system. All the Lr versions are stand-alone versions, not "plug-ins" for the previous versions. So you can have two (or more) different Lr versions on your system. So I would suggest that you upgrade to Lr 4.1 (once this version is out) but leave Lr2 on your system. When you Lr4 you will be asked if you want to upgrade your Lr catalog to Lr4 and you have the option of saving the Lr4 catalog as a different file, so that your Lr2 catalog is still available for Lr2 (Lr2 will not be able to work with the Lr4 catalog!). That way, if anything is amiss in Lr4 you can go back to Lr2 and work from there.

Keyword list totals missing in LR3

Top level totals missing in keyword list in LR3, these were there in LR2. Totals available by individual keyword only. I used these totals to check that all new photos had been keyworded, now I cannot say if I have missed some records or which ones they are. No top level totals in search either.

As Lee Jay has pointed out, this is by design. Lightroom now only displays a count for explicit keywords.

Questions about keyword hierarchy

I'm in the process of designing and building a keyword hierarchy for LR3.5, and I'm at a loss to understand a couple of things.
In the process of deciding how to build this, I've looked at a number of hierarchies people have posted to the web. One thing I've noted is that people sometimes have the same word in multiple hierarchies, and sometimes the same word as both a regular entry and as a synonym. For example:
Architecture
      Building
          Church
                  {Cathedral}
          Cathedral
          Skyscraper.....
Cities
      Building
      Cathedral....
So what happens if I use the keyword building?
I *think* what will happen is that LR gives me a choice of selecting Building>Architecture OR Building>Cities. Is that correct?   Is there a way to get Building, Cities AND Architecture? What happens if I select Cities? Do I get ONLY cities, and none of the lower level keywords?
And I'm at a total loss about synonyms. If, while applying keywords to an image, I select the synonym {Cathedral}, under Architecture, what keyword(s) get assigned to the image? What if I select Church? And what if I select Cathedral under Cities?
Many thanks.

Thanks web-weaver.
I posted basically the same question in a couple of other places, and got conflicting answers. And the information I found on web searches tended to explain HOW to set up a hierarchy, but not how it really worked, and information on synonyms is especially limited, and often conflicting. So I did some tests. So as to not use any words that were already in my keyword list, I built a simple hierarchy of words not currently in use:
Colors
    Blue
        {Cyan}
        {Azure}
    Red
        Pink
                        Salmon
        Rose
    Green
        {BRG}
        {Emerald}
    Cyan
    Orange
Fruit
    Orange
    Apple
(I actually had a couple of other trees, but this is enough to demonstrate how they actually work.)
And it turns out synonyms don't work quite like I expected them to, and are, honestly, so limited I question their value.
Test1: Tag a photo with the keyword Cyan. Only Cyan gets applied to the metadata, not any of the words associated with it (Blue, Colors, Azure). Searching, I can find the image by searching on Cyan, or Colors. But NOT by searching on Blue.
Test2: Tag a photo with the keyword Blue. Only Blue gets applied to the metadata, not Cyan, or Azure. When searching, I can find it by searching on Blue, or any of it's synonyms (Cyan, Azure), or Colors.
(I had expected synonyms to work the other way, I think. So that if I searched on Blue I'd get all images tagged with Blue, but also those tagged with Azure and Cyan. )
Test3: Tag one photo with Cyan, and another with Blue. Searching with Cyan gets me both images, as does searching with Colors. Searching on Blue gets me only the image tagged with Blue.
Test 4: Tag a photo with the word Colors (and nothing else). I find it by searching ONLY on colors, not Blue, Cyan, or Azure.
Test 5: Tag a photo with the word Red (and nothing else). I find it by searching on Red, or Colors, but not Pink or Rose.
Test 6: Tag a photo with the word Pink (and nothing else). I find it by searching on Pink, Red or Colors, but not Salmon.
Test 7: Tag one photo with Orange->Color, and a second image with Orange->Fruit (this nomenclature seems backwards to me, btw. It's really Fruit-Orange and Color-Orange, but whatever...) Searching on Orange finds both images. Searching on Color finds only one, searching on Fruit finds only the other.
Synonyms affect only search, and not tagging (assignment). Searching on a term that is a synonym will find images tagged with the main word. (e.g., search on Azure and you'll find Blue, but not Colors).
On another site someone replied that when you search you'll find "any image which bears that keyword or any keyword BELOW it in the hierarchy." That's backwards, at least as I understand the word "above.". You'll actually find images using the keyword, it's alias, or any word ABOVE it in the hierarchy. So if an image is tagged with Red, you can find it by searching on Red or Colors, but not Pink. If the image is tagged with pink, you can find it with Colors, Red or Pink, but not Salmon.
The worst limitation of using synonyms is that when you're tagging an image, LR3 isn't smart enough to know the synonyms exist. So if I tag an image with the word Azure, LR3 doesn't substitute Blue, or use the synonym where it already exists in the hierarchy. Instead, creates a new, top level entry named Azure, not tied in any way to the alias or the "Colors" tree.
It seems like it would be useful to be able to enter Blue as a search term and find any images tagged with Azure and Cyan. Or enter Red as a search term and find Pink and Rose, too. The way it's implemented now forces you to enter the term you're most likely to use (Blue, for example) at the bottom of the hierarchy, and the least used words above. Or to use synonyms, and hope you never get confused an enter a synonym as a keyword instead of the word it refers to.
It seems to me it's more useful to just use Azure as another keyword beneath (or maybe above) Blue in the hierarchy. At least that way if I tag an image with Azure, I'm not creating a new entry in the Keyword list. I'm not sure I see much value in synonyms as they're currently implemented, but if someone has some examples of how synonyms benefit them I'd be delighted to see them.
Hopefully this information will be of use to someone.

Upgrade keyword database to handle more than 1600 keywords

I have ~3000 keywords in my LR3 catalogue and can only easly access the first ~1600 without having to use the Text search box.
Can the database be changed/modified to cater for a larger number?
Thanks, Allan

Hi John,
I had a thread going in the LR3 forum which gives the background and where I got the ~1600 keyword limitation.
See ...
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/695937?tstart=0
The specific problem I have is that all my keywords are in a flat structure (no hierarchy) and when I try to access the keywords from the righthand panel in the library I can select the keywords OK down to about the halfway mark (~3300 keywords total). After halfway I cannot select the keywords to get them displayed. The only way to select them is to type in the keyword in the text search box.
I also cannot get the last keywords (down in the XYZ area) displayed in either the keyword panel or if I have the keywords list set up in the metadata dropdown menu.
I am waiting for a LR3 book to come out that will give me some guidance on setting up a hierarchy but as I have ~170k pictures I am not looking forward to recoding the metadata.
Thanks for your interest,
Allan

I am writing to this forum to ask for help in determining whether Aperture will satisfy my needs when I switch from Windows to MAC in the near future.

I am writing to this forum to ask for help in determining whether Aperture will satisfy my needs when I switch from Windows to MAC in the near future.
I am currently using Photoshop Elements 8 on Windows 7. After several years of use, I am self taught and adequately proficient for an amateur. What I didn't realize (until I started researching my upcoming migration on the Internet) is that I actually use PE8 for two functions: digital asset management and digital editing.
Regarding Digital Asset Management: My research leads me to understand that PE on MAC does not provide the same level of organizational capability that I am used to having on Windows, instead providing Adobe's Bridge which does not look very robust. Furthermore, iPhoto, which come on MAC will not support the hierarchical keyword tagging that I require to organize my library of photos. The two SW applications which I am thinking of switching to are either Aperture or Adobe's Lightroom. Frankly, I'm thinking that it would be smoother to stay within the Apple product line.
So the remaining question is whether Aperture will support my digital editing needs. The tweaks that I do to my photos are not very complex (no, I do not want to put people's heads on other animal bodies). But could someone who uses Aperture tell me whether It will allow me to do the following kinds of edits?:
- If I have a photo where someone's face is too shadowed, can I lighten just that person's face, and leave the rest of the photo as-is?
- if I have a photo where the background is cluttered (eg, 2 people in front of the Parthenon which is undergoing renovation), can I remove just the construction cranes?
- Can it splice together several separate photos to give a panoramic?
If, once I get Aperture, I find that it cannot enable the kinds of editing that I do, I would probably get PE11 in the future. However, if people in this forum tell me that Aperture will definitely not support the kinds of editing which I've described in the previous paragraph, I would prefer to get PE11 with my initial configuration (since someone will be helping me with my migration).
Thanks in advance for your consideration and help!

I am concerned, however, about using a non-Apple Digital Asset Manager in OSX. I would really like to avoid integration problems. Is using PE11 to import and catalog my digital photos likely to cause conflicts?
Thanks for any insight on this
Amy,
Not so much conflicts as maybe a little less seamless integration with Apple software and perhaps some third-party software providers in the Mac App Store where some programs build in direct access to iPhoto and Aperture libraries for getting images into those programs easily. Typically, there is a manual command to go to Finder (think Windows Explorer) to browse folders.
One caution to mention however, is that the organization you set-up in PE Organizer is unlikely to transfer over to either iPhoto or Aperture if you decide to change at some point.
The only real stumbling block that I see in your opening comment is that you want hierarchical keywording (Kirby or Léonie can go into the details on keywording limitations as I stay at one level). If you can work with the keywording schemes of either iPhoto or Aperture, then using PE for your external editor (either program supports setting an external editor) would probably be ideal since you know PE well. This is the idea with the Mac App Store version of PE (editor with no organizer).
Note - I use Photoshop CS6 (full version) with Aperture and it works really well. The only downside is that Aperture has to make either a TIFF or PSD file to send to an external editor so that the original file is protected by not sending it to the pixel editor. While TIFF or PSD files protect the integrity of the image information without degrading it, they are typically much larger file sizes on disk than either RAW or JPEG files. Therefore, your library size (iPhoto or Aperture) will balloon quite a bit if you send a lot of files to external editors.
One other possibility for an external editor would be a program called Pixelmator. It is pretty similar to early versions of Photoshop, but built for Mac. Other than the panoramics you want, it will do most pixel editing that PE can do. It is not an organizer, so it is built to go with either iPhoto or Aperture. It does have differences in how you complete certain procedures, so there is bit of a learning curve when you are used to doing it the Adobe way.

Oracle 10g Select Top 100 Percent

Hello
How to convert MS sql 2008 select top 100 query Oracle PL/SQL ? MY sample MSSQL select query
SELECT TOP (100) PERCENT dbo.Operations.OpID, dbo.CompanyInfo.Name AS CompanyName, dbo.CustomerInfo.SubscriberNo, dbo.CustomerInfo.FirstName,
dbo.CustomerInfo.LastName, dbo.Operations.OpDate, dbo.Operations.BillCount, dbo.Operations.TotalAcceptedCash, dbo.Operations.KioskID,
dbo.Operations.ReceiptNo, dbo.Operations.KioskOpID, dbo.KioskInfo.Name AS KioskName, dbo.Operations.TotalBill, dbo.Operations.TotalPayBack,
dbo.CompanyInfo.CompanyID, dbo.Operations.ConfirmedRecord, dbo.PayMethod.ACK AS PayMethod
FROM dbo.Operations INNER JOIN
dbo.CustomerInfo ON dbo.Operations.SubscriberNo = dbo.CustomerInfo.SubscriberNo INNER JOIN
dbo.CompanyInfo ON dbo.Operations.CompanyID = dbo.CompanyInfo.CompanyID INNER JOIN
dbo.KioskInfo ON dbo.Operations.KioskID = dbo.KioskInfo.KioskID INNER JOIN
dbo.PayMethod ON dbo.Operations.PayMethodID = dbo.PayMethod.PayMethodID
ORDER BY dbo.Operations.OpDate DESC

Hi,
Please read SQL and PL/SQL FAQ
Additionally when you put some code please enclose it between two lines starting with {noformat}{noformat}
i.e.:
{noformat}{noformat}
SELECT ...
{noformat}{noformat}
From what I have found on MS SQL documentation it seems that TOP keyword limits the output to a specified percentage of total number of rows. In your case, having specified 100, you are returning 100% of rows.
So you can simply remove *TOP (100) PERCENT*
Regards.
Al

Catalogs and Collections

Windows 7 and CS4 Production Premium, LR3 and Acrobat X I have just received LR3.3 so this application is new to me. I currently use a non-Adobe application for my image database management. My images are primarily associated with genealogy work saved as uncompressed TIFF. At this time I have 5716 files in 68 folders. It is organized as follows: The highest level is by family surname (6 folders). Each of these folders contain 9 other sub-folders which represents image content; such as, individuals, siblings, family, etc. One of the highest level folders is used to contain images that have multiple family surname people in the image. In addition to these genealogy folders, there are other folders that contain images sorted by characteristics, such as, trips, scenic, trains, planes, etc. Using the current application terms, I maintain a catalog for each sub-folder. It is a thumbnail of each image in that folder with the file name and IPTC caption "headline" description. I make extensive use of IPTC metadata for each image: Headline, Description, Title, Keywords and Instructions. I want to fully understand the LR3 catalog(s) and collection(s) and smart collection(s) before I begin the changeover to LR3. Q1: Whenever I add a new image to my hard file storage folder, do I have to manually add it to the LR catalog? With my current application, when a folder is selected in that application, it looks for changes in the folder and new thumbnails are generated for the new files. Q2: A smart collection appears to built by keywords from the LR3 catalog and the non-smart collection must be manually built from the LR3 catalog...Correct? Q3: When I build a collection by "keywords" can portions of the file name structure be included (not placed in the keyword metadata) in the build criteria? Q4: Been thinking of using one LR3 catalog for my genealogy images and one for my non-genealogy images. Then use collections (smart or non-smart to be determined) for each of my sub-folders. Sound reasonable? Q5: Can I do a search on the catalog via keywords without requiring a collection name defined? This would be a temporary assemblage of images only. Q6: Can I print the catalog or a collection with the file name and IPTC data (e.g., Headline) under each thumbnail?

Di_paige, thanks for your response.
As noted in my previous response, I took the word "keyword" too literally. That confusion is now cleared up.
A clarification to your question on multiple surname handling. Currently, I have a set of hard drive folders for specific surnames and one other set for images having multiple surname content. I think that if I have one catalog for genealogy that a search by surname will turn up the applicable images in all the hard disk folders (assuming they have been cataloged).
The thought process of a collection per hard disk folders is mostly governed by the desire for printing a document (want to avoid the term catalog) for each such hard disk folder when a person requests such information. Doing so at this level reduces the print size of the document. Now as I get into this with LR maybe it is not necessary if I can simply print a set of images based on file names (with wild cards) and IPTC keyword content.
Thanks again for your helpful answers.

Will LR3 automatically transfer keyword tags of photos created in PSE when importing the photos

Hi eveeryone,
I am new to LR3. I would like to import all my photos into LR3 and all these photos have keyword tags that were done in PSE. Will LR3 automatically import the keyword tags too? If not, how would I do it?
Much appreciate your feedback.

The answer is "NO", because importing is the WRONG thing to do here.
The proper procedure is to have LR3 upgrade your PSE catalog. In Lightroom, File->Upgrade PSE Catalog. All your tags will show up in Lightroom as keywords. Couldn't be simpler!
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WS217DEA0F-2A78-4445-89CB-4CED1AFA450E.htm l

Keyword Sets Limited to just 9 Keywords

Is there a way to assign more than 9 keywords to a Keyword Set?
I'm a wildlife photographer and would like to use Keyword Sets for groupings of animals - eg Antelope Set, Reptile Set, Raptor Set - but all these sets would have more than 9 keywords. Breaking the sets into sub-sets would result in far too many Keyword Sets to be manageable and would also make naming the Keyword Sets a challenge.
I've created hierarchies of keywords as a work-around, but its more cumbersome than using a Keyword Set.
If Keyword Sets are limited to 9 keywords, then the functionality is fairly useless to me, so I'd like to understand why it was limited so tightly if anyone knows.

Unfortunately Melissa, what that means is that when the keyword upgrade comes out, we'll all have to shelll out for another upgrade, when it should have been included this time around.
Having only 9 keywords makes the tool VERY frustrating for me as a sports photographer to use. For example, in Baseball, I have a set for BASEBALL, baseball offense, baseball defense, bench, and crowd. The only set that I can batch apply on import is the generic BASEBALL, the others need applied to individual or groups of pictures. (ie: action and player information is specific to this photo) The "Recent" set is completely useless, as it is still pulling up basketball keywords as "recent" that have not been used in months while ignoring keywords typed minutes or even seconds before. A useful keyword set would hover at or above 20 keywords to choose from ... or at least take advantage of the rest of the column space. (Now that would be a cool idea -- dynamically sized keyword list dependent on available height on this monitor!)
In the meantime, does anyone know of a plugin that makes keywording easier? I really don't want to shell out for PhotoMechanic just to get keywording right!
John

Keyword Containing Count Missing in LR3

In LR2 the keywords panel shows a count for the parent keywords, in LR3 this seems to be missing. For example I have a New Zealand keyword tag under Country which has a count of 17. Below this NZ keyword are North Island and South Island with counts of 2197 and 8132 respectively. In LR 2 there is a total of these two keywords showing against the parent keyword of New Zealand. Is there an option I need to have checked or something like that? The North and South Island keyword options are checked for export containing keyword, and they show under the Will Export Keywording panel. Seems a little confusing, obviously this is also happening for other countries and other keywords with children, e.g. wildflowers under flora....

As Lee Jay has pointed out, this is by design. Lightroom now only displays a count for explicit keywords.

LR3 'Keyword' and Microsoft 'Tags' issue

I keep LR3 and my catalog on my main computer (a desktop) at home. While away from home taking pictures (which is most of the time) I view my pictures (directly from the SDHC card) in either Windows or FastStone Image Viewer. Since most of my pictures are of plants I need to ID the plants and get that ID onto the photo pretty quickly or the information gets lost.
Over the past couple of months I’ve ID’d many pictures by using Windows and filling in the ‘Tags’ field. But I’ve just discovered that LR does not see that field so I can’t import the tags into the LR ‘Keyword’ field. Have I missed something or have I wasted a lot of time?
Thankfully it’s not a lot of data and I can manually read the Windows ‘Tags’ field and retype it into the LR ‘Keyword’. But I need a solution moving forward.
How can I keyword or tag my pictures in the field using only a laptop without LR so that the data is then usable or transferrable to the LR ‘Keyword’ field.
Thanks for your help...be gentle.
Andrew

John:
Here's my process...
After I shoot in the field I go back to my laptop and view the pictures in Windows Explorer. At this point I either have to look up the name of the plant in the picture or take the information from some other source. When I know the name, usually the genus, species and common name, I ender in the 'Tags" field that appears at the bottom of the screen along with the other data (date taken, tating, size, author, camera maker etc., etc.) I then save this to the jpeg photo but not the NEF ( everything is shot jpeg+nef).
When I've filled a card I edit out those photos that are not in any way usable. The remaining pictures (both the JPEG and NEF) are then copied to my archive on my desktop hard drive. Once I've copied over the files and backed them up to another drive I then open LR3 on the desktop and use the import function to add the pictures to my catalog.
When I've done this in the past I thought LR took the informaiton in the 'Tags' field and during the import process LR moved the data from the "Tags" and put it into the LR 'Keyword' field for the related picture in the catalog. I could have simply imagined that this was taking place and I haven't had a chance to verify that it was happening on earlier imports. All I know is that on my last import it didn't happen.
So...I'm either dreaming and this never really worked or it's not working any more.
That's where I am at the moment...excpet that I need a fool proof way to make my annotations on the pictures before the make it over to lightromm and make sure these annotations (Genus, speciies etc.) can be added in the field and then show up when the import is done.
Hope this is clear...if not I'll try again or harder.
Thanks for bearing with me.
Andrew

LR2 - LR3 counting keywords has changed - why?

From LR2 to LR3 the method of counting keywords with child keywords (parent keywords) has changed - why?
In keyword hierarchies, some keyword levels a used just to categorize keywords, but they would be never used. In Lightroom 2 the keyword count for parent keywords, showed the numbers of images to which this keyword or any of its childs was applied. This way, one could easily see, how many images were assigned within a keyword hierarchy. In LR 3 the count number only represents how many images are assigned with that particular keyword, child assignments are no longer counted. While there are arguments for the usefulness of each counting methods, I wonder, why that has been changed, and why the older method of LR 2 has been omitted. It could have been left in as an option without too much effort. In general, it is bad practice to change program behaviour in such places, because you don't know, if people use the former method in their workflows and actually prefer this.
LR 2:
Flowers          79 If "Flowers" would be applied to 2 images, "81" would be shown here)
      Daisy       12
      Rose        45
      Tulip         22
LR 3:
Flowers             0 (actually nothing is displayed), If "Flowers" would be applied to 2 images, "2" would be shown here)
     Daisy         12
     Rose          45
     Tulip           22
In general, I find the new behaviour inconsistent, because if I click on the arrow to the right of a parent keyword, the images are filtered to the parent keyword and all of its child keywords, whereas the counting does not include the childs.
In genral I would prefer that Lightroom would include both numbers:
LR 4:
Flowers         0/79 (if "Flowers" is applied to 2 images, "2/81" would be shown here)
   Daisy         12
   Rose          45
   Tulip           22
Kind regards

Thank you for the explanation. However, instead of taking the older method out, which at least some (perhaps many?) find useful, the engineers could have made this configurable. I don't know, why they take always the easier route. Making things configurable isn't that difficult. Let the user decide, if his equipment is well enough suited to digest the perfomance penalty caused by the LR 2 method. I can't really understand the complaints about the LR 2 method. For what do we actually have keyword hierarchies? The LR 2 way of counting was one of the nicest features of Lightroom's DAM capabilities. If such a thing confuses some and others not, the way to do it is to make it configurable. Best practice, I would say.
My friend is using keyword hierarchies heavily for organizing images (shouldn't be anything wrong with that). The LR 2 method of counting keywords was pretty crucial for her workflow. I suggest bringing the feature back and let the customer decide to use it or not.
Not very good practice, the product management is showing here.

Keywords won't save to JPEG from LR3

I have an interesting problem I can't resolve. I imported some JPEGs into LR3 and added keywords, title and description to the first one. I then used Sync Metadata to add the same keywords to the second file. All shows normally in LR. I then edited the keywords a bit, changed the title and description, and then after selecting both, I saved metadata to file using the right-click menu.
The first image has all information saved to the file (I'm using both Prostockmaster and Irfanview to check), but nothing I do will make the metadata appear in the second image. I tried exporting to a new file name with no success, tried modifying the keywords again and saving to file, basically tried everything I can think of, but I cannot get the metadata into the file. If it was just one image, this wouldn't be a great problem, but it has happened to several that were handled similarly.
The JPEGs came from an export from LR from original Canon raw files (no keywords at that stage) if that makes a difference.
Any ideas?
Steve

Did you notice that you need to specify for each keyword, if it will be included on export? You do so in editing the keyword tag (right-click on a keyword, chosse edit..).
The keywords that won't save - how are they specified regarding export?
When you export from raw to jpeg, do you tick "minimize embedded metadata" in the export dialog ? When I do so, no keywords will be exported (neither EXIF info about lens and lighting etc.).
So you might give it a try to first check on the keyword tag properties, then exporting without the minimizing metadata tick.

Keyword limitations in LR3?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for