Showing contents of subfolders
Is there a way to get C1 to show the images in all subfolders while selecting the parent folder?
Thanks!
-
In a word... no. 0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
When I select a parent folder that has subfolders, in the Browser and the Viewer, nothing shows. I have to select the individual lowest level subfolder to get the images to show.
Is there a way to get C1 to show the images in all subfolders while selecting the parent folder?
Thanks!
Are you talking Catalogue or Sessions?
Grant0 -
This a limitation in CO. You also can't select multiple folders. If you came from Lightroom or Aperture then this can be rather annoying 😉 0 -
[quote="sizzlingbadger" wrote:
This a limitation in CO. You also can't select multiple folders. If you came from Lightroom or Aperture then this can be rather annoying 😉
Yeah, but in the final analysis after a few seconds setting things up ... how much of a challenge is it? Really?
Sure I can understand if people think that is a contentious question but there are more ways of looking at these questions than many of us are comfortable to admit.
Might I suggest that, once you have the content you want in a catalog or session, the folder hierarchy should be irrelevant?
Therefore if the effort required to get the data files into the system once? is compromised by a few seconds of extra activity ... is it later repaid by the time spent NOT pursuing other former problems ?0 -
Nah, I still think it's an annoying and time wasting limitation, even after giving it some thought. 😊
Being able to select and manipulate multiple folders in a list is a pretty basic function.0 -
Are you talking Catalogue or Sessions?
Catalog, does sessions allow that?0 -
Might I suggest that, once you have the content you want in a catalog or session, the folder hierarchy should be irrelevant?
If I was only working within Capture One, and could guarantee that I was only going to work in C1, then sure, how things are on disk doesn't matter, and you do all the organising within C1 albums/projects/etc. The way I work though, my folder hierarchy on disk is the first level of organisation, and that is utilised in more than one program, so the more I can do with actual "physical" folders, the better.
I do understand though that different apps have different workflows, so you do have to make concessions. Not being able to select or view more than a single folder at a time seems like a pretty big concession that could be solved without harming existing workflows within C1.0 -
I'm not familiar with the details of catalog use.
In a session you can operate at the folder level simply by browsing to the folder and opening files and doing stuff with them.
Then you can make the folder a "Favourite" and create a permanent reference to it in the session database.
Importing means that this sort of stuff plus file naming, creating the folder structure (referenced and accessible to other applications and a number of other things if desired is all handled as the files are ingested - pretty similar to a catalog I would imagine.
One of the default Smart Albums in a session is All Images which, as far as I can tell from my very limited use of catalogs, is the same as the equivalent Collection in a catalog.
The All images Smart Albums gives me all images in the session irrespective of which folder they are in.
Now although I cant create a smart album simply by selecting by folder(s) I can by a number of other criteria which could be set up for the images in the the required folders quite quickly. Keywords springs to mind but there are several other options.
Alternatively I could generate a session for transient use, navigate to the folders and make them favourites and then see all the files they contain in all folders.
Edit data is held locally so the "Master" session should still reference the files it will recognise or find new ones (subject to what has been undertaken) when opened. There is no reason why images should not be referenced in multiple session files - other than the potential for causing some confusion if the sessions have rather different processing objectives!
At a guess a Catalog Project could be used in the same way?
Grant0 -
[quote="meanwhile" wrote:
Might I suggest that, once you have the content you want in a catalog or session, the folder hierarchy should be irrelevant?
If I was only working within Capture One, and could guarantee that I was only going to work in C1, then sure, how things are on disk doesn't matter, and you do all the organising within C1 albums/projects/etc. The way I work though, my folder hierarchy on disk is the first level of organisation, and that is utilised in more than one program, so the more I can do with actual "physical" folders, the better.
I do understand though that different apps have different workflows, so you do have to make concessions. Not being able to select or view more than a single folder at a time seems like a pretty big concession that could be solved without harming existing workflows within C1.
Agreed, the physical layout is important to me too.0 -
Amazing. What a waste. Folders always were the way humans of this earth have organised data from the day we have invented paper and carton. It's been the default from the common manila folder to modern operating systems as diverse and competing as Windows, Linux and Macintosh. It's also how all other software works from Lightroom to, say Microsoft Word or Apple Numbers.
In walks Phase One and says... Folders? Nah no need. Use this other thing called collections. Yep gotta recreate everything you got. And nah, can't drag and drop you folder structure there or sync it. Got to literally go through your 10,000 folders and redo it from scratch. What is collections? Oh, it's a bit like these things called folders, except that, it is like double virtual... and only accessible in Capture One.
Pffffff
As "meanwhile" has put it, there's no way I could guarantee that I will only ever work in Capture One.
Talk about reinventing the wheel. That's it. I will use Lightroom as my Digital Asset Management System.
Thanks for nothing Capture One.
0 -
WoN, this is a 7 years old post. The latest version of C1 supports aggregation of images in non-subfolders. It took them long but finally we got it.
0 -
BeO not sure I follow I am on Capture One 21 and I cannot access subfolder contents from the root folder….
0 -
That suggests you are using the Session concept rather than a catalogue?
0 -
Yes, its only for catalogs.
0 -
No I'm in a catalogue... CO 21 Pro (full version)
0 -
Ah, the "Filing System" that we humans find so difficult to move on from towards something more effective in the world of computing.
Millions of trees died once photocopying became a growth industry and people were enabled to easily keep multiple copies of what started out as a single document so that they could have personal copies and even multiple copies order to store them in "systems" that suited their needs.
Adapting to a paperless office and understanding the potential power of relational databases is taking much longer than the concept creators promised in the sales pitches. Which is strange when one considers that almost the entire modern world is now based on information created digitally, something that is especially true for almost all image creation. Even if not created digitally the most active area of subsequent processing and distribution is digital at its core. We hide the way computers actually work behind "User Interfaces" that we like to think provide us with some controls. Like folders.
There are some signs that younger generations, whose introduction to the world of online data has been provided via the use of "apps" that "do things in their own way" to keep things simple, may be less tied to the concept of folders - if only because they cannot be bothered to spend a lot of time "managing" things that are often extremely ephemeral when someone or something else is offering to do it for them.
0 -
SFA, this is one way to see it. I see if differently. A File system with folder structures is the intermediate layer between 0s and 1s, or a file allocation table, used by the operating system and the "apps" with graphical user interfacs.
It is the least common denominator between all apps, be it Windows Explorer, Mac Finder, C1, MS Word, Adobe PS, a web mailing interface, etc., and us.
Assume folder organisation would not exist, how would a youngster, who only knows C1 and a web mailing client, find and attach a specific image to an email? The web mailing client does not know the metadata of images nor the collections from a C1 database (ah, btw, which catalog database file..? and where is it to be found..?). He would hardly be able to find it.
The list of examples impossible (or at least most inconvenient, ineffective and inefficient) could go on, I think you understand my point.
Unless my computer understands when I speak to it like in Star Trek "Computer, show me all b&w versions of the jpg images from the shoot with Mary last year in June at Venice beach, and attach them to a new email to Mary", or something alike, we need some kind of organisational help which is understood by all apps (and us) so we can coordinate the actions which otherwise could be done by a clever, future and intelligent computer.
0 -
BeO,
I fully understand your point. But it's a selection and delivery problem not a filing organisational problem.
In Windows I can search all the files on the system based on "text" information within the files. Just as one can search within a suitably prepared database using metadata entries.
So If I can manage my database adequately with "standardised" meta data available for the purpose - EXIF, IPTC, etc., I have no need of knowing about a folder structure. (Nor do have the problem of requiring the same "document" in multiple "folders" so that it is easier to find in the filing system when different purposes appear.)
On export for distribution - typically with a new file due to the file type - I should be able to include the data relevant to finding the document easily. I may well save it in a "folder" for ease of attachment to an email or sending to a secure distribution service - but that is a different requirement to managing the original document for use within my "system".
Your vocal request above is the sort of request that Alexa and the other "Smart speaker devices and services" undertake regularly and with remarkable success much of the time. My NAS can do the same sort of thing for any documents I have told it to include in its analysis activities, albeit not current by voice commend so far as I know. Windows can use a text search as part of its file finding functionality using as much or as little specific information as is necessary according to ones needs.
The challenge is knowing how best to document each file (without overkill and over complexity on the effort side) and whether the information required in the processing side of the activity is the same as is required on the output and distribution side. It may not be and we may still find it to be more convenient to "store" output neatly packaged in folder in preparation for dispatch to their recipients. (If for no other reason than we will likely have checked that they are what we want to send and do not contain any selections that we do not want to send due to less than fully quality controlled IPTC type data entries!)
The larger photo libraries are often interesting examples of how documents can be discovered and presented.
I totally understand what you write about the User Interface commonality. Decades ago I was working with a company whose policy was Mac only and being a Windows (and similar OSs) person who expected to get his hands dirty diving into the file management systems on a regular basis I found the "user friendly" Mac interface of that time completely non-intuitive. The applications I used mostly were Windows based (Or UNIX) so I was constantly reminded about the mechanics of the system that Apple wanted to hide.
Fortunately for me the business systems they really needed to move to were not supported on Mac in any way at the time, so they change the entire Worldwide company over to Windows.
Just to take your example for a minute - if the only way you can identify the images you want if through folder naming (other than file type, possibly) then sure you would need folders that group the images into the set you want using, say, B&W, Mary, Venice Beach and either a Month by name or, more universally, a Date of some structure, and that would get what you wanted.
Alternatively, some preferred combination of IPTC data fields and Keywords embedded in your output jpgs would deliver the same result even without the constraint of a Folder structure even if, over time, your needs for a default folder structure concept have changed and thus inconsistencies might exist across the archive.
I'll put my hand up and admit that the way I work is not folder free. Indeed the use of sessions, which I prefer, makes things dependent, to some extent prior to output, on a "Folder". The session. But then much of what I do is based on Events and so it is relatively logical, for processing purposes, to work just with that event and not a whole back catalogue of other events when I only want to work with one of them.
After output the requirements may, sometimes, vary.
One thing I have never wanted is for the Output "folder" in my session to be automatically added as a folder full of editable images just because someone has added the option to "include subfolders" as a default when I much prefer the ability to control which "folders" are included. That may be the one aspect of "Folders" (or more generally, process access segmentation) that I fully support.
0 -
Hm. If Windows, and C1 (and all other apps) would support a hirarchical structure created on the fly (and in no time), e.g. based on metadata fields, then a static folder hirarchy would not be needed as much, as you can create it on the fly. And save the definition of them as you for example do with smart albums for instant selection of this, like a saved search.
But, instead of having all documents in one big container (root folder) and utilzing a super duper metadata on the fly or prededefined searches, with or without hirarchy, we could also stick with the static folders plus this super duper concept. At least until this super duper concept actually exists, and can be used by any app available.
May the future be bright...
0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
20 comments