Thanks for your reply. LR vs PS is pros and cons. Not always do I need to visit PS for advanced destructive work. Weddings and events for example typically do not require PS destructive work, at least not on many shots (perhaps 10%), thus LR is incredibly useful as a synchronisation application to render many images in succession to looking like an edit you're currently working on. So LR has its uses. I am not aware of Camera Raw or Bridge having this Synchronisation capability, but perhaps I am wrong? Weddings & Event work I have typically more scope for changing the art direction for the client (due to not visiting PS as much). If the render I have chosen in LR is not to the clients liking then I can pretty easily choose another without losing the various soft retouches and radial filters etc in LR. So, your advice whilst welcome still does not really address the question at hand. This is about saving (potential) time, being able to perform 'destructive' layer work to an image file that has been rendered, but also is it possible to apply that same work just performed to another version of that image that has not yet been rendered, thus providing a kind of failsafe (although not ideal) should the rendered version deemed not suitable, without having to redo the destructive layering work all over again... Can I for example have two files open in PS; IMG1 IMG1VirtualCopy (rendered version) The two files are indentical in terms of composition and crop, only difference is exposure, shadows, and render etc on the IMG1VirtualCopy (we could even pretend the IMG1VirtualCopy is a mono shot now and the original IMG1 still colour). If I have these files open in PS, and I perform the destructive work as layers on the Img1VirtualCopy, can I then simply copy these layers into the IMG1 file? Would that work? Due to render and exposure differences would the destructive layer work just simply be ill advised due to native differences between the two files...? ... View more

After posting this, I've had a thought. Lets say I did the following; LR>DNG>Rendered Mono (with a preset from a bought for package)>Edit in PS>Apply Frequency Separation and stray hair removal>Save/Export Could I 'save' the layer work on the file, regardless of the Background Layer? Meaning... if for example the client decided mono was not the best choice after all and wants colour, I could then do the following; LR>DNG>Render Colour this time>Edit in PS>Load the layers and work I had previously done on the mono version and apply>Save/Export Thus... the work that has been done can be redone/applied quickly regardless of the background layer used? Would that work? ... View more

Ok so I think I have resolved the issue and I noticed I was fighting an issue on two fronts. Firstly, I went back and inspected the reimported sRGB jpg more closely. It appears at first (the initial screenshot above) that when putting side by side they are the same, but in fact they are not. If I toggle quickly between the original Tiff with the exported and reimported sRGB Jpg then there is a slight darkening of the image on the jpg. I'm putting this shift down to the loss of information when viewing a 16 bit ProPhoto Tiff  file in a supported ProPhoto 16 bit environment of LR to comparing with a 8 bit sRGB Jpg pulled back into the same environment. But that's not the whole story, because if it was just that, then the side by side comparison of the shots (seen in screenshot 1) would be more like what we see in screenshot 2, but we can see that this image is still quite a bit darker still. I stumbled upon this article; https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic/lightroom-export-issues-colour-saturation/td-p/10086489?page=1   I took Sahil's answer and acted upon it, opening Colour Management in Windows 10, selecting the BenQ monitor and instead of using the Default Benq one I clicked 'Add' and selected the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 and then set it to default. Now I exited LR and restarted it, upon reloading I could immediately see my files were looking far more darker than they were before, something more akin the the exports, so I think there we have it. Can you see why using sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as a colour profile for my monitor would be a bad thing? ... View more

Agreed, however in this instance I did not think the issue was due to calibration per se or brightness. If my screen is too bright or colours in accurate, there would still exist a shift what I see in LR and the export. This issue is to do with a darkening/exposure issue between LR and the export, a calibrated monitor would still see this. ... View more

Yes, its a darkened border as Faststone Image has a bright border naturally and threw things off even more, I did also think like you that perhaps its optical trickery but no... it's consistently darker with different toned backgrounds or applications. ... View more

Thanks for this! And sorry for the late reply (life got busy!). This was exactly the missing piece to the puzzle that I think I needed to make it work! Thanks again! (and everyone else that helped)  ... View more

Yeah that sounds way over my head and technical ability. It's just such a shame, I can create an action to put the png watermark into the shot as a layer, have it resized so that it's the right size for every picture (regardless of resolution or orientation etc), but it's centred, and if I align it with the Layer>Align feature then it puts it right on the bottom. If I use the Free Transform tool and simply drag it down to the edge (using the pink guidelines) it lines up perfectly! But that dragging is recorded in the Action as a pixel movement and not point or percentage or whatever it needs to be so that from image to image it would be correct, instead it's not so I must manually drag it down. I mean I'm moving in the right direction, it's just when you have 50-80 images like this... urgh.. ... View more

Cool, didn't know that. I guess the video shows a border solution only, much like the LR Print module ideas do too, but none of these suggestions can solve the idea of placing the watermark in the bordering as well, or do they? I mean from a purely batch process perspective. I just finished an album, 169 images where I had to do this. LR/Mogrify 2 enabled me to do 135 in one go pretty swiftly, meaning it managed the bordering AND watermark in one batch process. But this was because each of the 135 images from the 169 were very similar, 3:2 ratio, very close in megapixel size etc. There are variances but not enough to really nit pick over. What was annoying were the other 34 images, they didn't do very well batch wise, hence this thread. I'm now wondering if perhaps I need a border with a jpg of the signature embedded, and then a batch process to have that applied (as a layer?) to the images and scaled (percentage overlap, 110% etc) to the image regardless of aspect ratio and mega pixel and then outputted via Image Processing or something... Just trying to think outside the box. The problem I think with that is then when the ratio changes the font/signature would too, get squished or stretched... urgh... ... View more

Not with using LR/Mogrify 2, you can apply the watermark off the image and onto the finished border (because it adds the border to the image and then adds the watermark after (technically onto the 'new' image which now has border added). ... View more

This doesn't address watermarking inside the border though.. or does it? I saw this today, thought this might work if I use 'percentage' instead of pixels? Photoshop action for adding border to multiple images with different aspect ratio - YouTube But then I still have to work out a process to then add the watermarking, to be scaled and fit right inside the applied bordering... hmm... ... View more

I thought about using the Print Module, but will it actually work via a percentage scheme vs pixels? Lets say you have one image that is 36mp and native aspect ratio 3:2. You want to add border (but not lose image size or pixels, add means ADD), and also have the watermark in the border like shown above. But then another image is taken with a 24mp camera and made to 1:1 aspect ratio. The idea is that the program or output will put the SAME thickness of bordering around each image, without compromising the size of the image, and also adding the watermark and automatically resizing it so that it fits in the bordering and appears the same, regardless of size of file, aspect ratio and such. TBH I think I can handle the renaming of files, not a biggy, and Jpg export is fine. I'll have a look at it again, it just appeared on first glance to not being up to the task. ... View more

Well we all have different financial means, I'd upgrade the NUC and sort storage issues out then make use of the Library feature fully (obviously) but that's not a viable option currently. Correct me if I am wrong but the only way to 'Sync' (edit) settings across images is with the Library tool? When in Develop module for example, you either expand the catalog from being a film strip at the bottom to being on the second monitor, and then using Ctrl key select the images you want to sync etc. This is a highly crucial feature I need for my work, it's a reason I haven't left Adobe in favour of other editors as they all seem to miss the synchronisation aspect. Can Syncing of edited image settings be completed in ACR? Furthermore I use various Presets such as VSCO and RNI, can they too be accessed from ACR or only LR? These days I am trying to restrict my access to PS as whatever changes I make to an image there can't be synced when back to LR etc. It's quite simple really, poor man, poor system, trying to find a balance between using the features I need whilst keeping optimisation at it's maximum, until inheritance money kicks in ... View more

Ok thanks for that, detailed and great approach. What I am now concerned about is performance. At the time I had actually 3400 images in my Catalog. Performance was sluggish, even when not in Develop mode but just from the import of new images, selecting images from the Library, selecting multiple images for sync purposes and all stuff like that, it was sluggish. Since moving to a new catalog with just 24 photos, it's like a fresh install again So I am hesitant to go back to having one catalog as although the fix your presented would work help older files etc, I'm wary it will return the sluggish LR interface and actually possibly make it even worse (by finding more images). So... two things; 1) Is there a way to build the catalog back up but somehow have things working more fluid with a large catalog? 2) When you do the 'ADD' option erase old edits at all? Cheers. ... View more

Thanks for that. I have a feeling LR is just set up for certain systems. A nice powerful desktop with multiple HDD trays and yer set. Or.. you move to cloud based LR. A  NUC with 250gb SSD and and Australia's ADSL2+ net speeds (5mb/s dl, 0.8mb/s ul) makes cloud based options null void . I used to own a higher powered desktop machine, but when you get months of 38-45 degree Celsius days powering a lot of tech for times when you really only access certain disks is not fun in terms of additional heat generated. Moving to the NUC has been mostly a positive change, the low noise, low heat has been a welcome relief. But I've had to 'juggle' files and that's come at a price, but mostly only this issue gas been the worst outcome of all. I understood that LR can import direct from a sd card, I tried that. I understand LR can change preview modes so it lowers the detail and increases speed of import, I understand LR can handle the culling procedure and I tried that also. We all shoot differently, in the end I found FastStone Image to being the least fussy fastest way of managing my work flow. I tried to leave adobe behind, tried Affinity etc, but in the end valued the Sync aspect of LR too much to leave it. I also value Presets and the sync aspect of that, something that is seldom featured in other software (perhaps C1 only). I do use PS for masking, layers and other plugins, but where possible staying within LR is quickest. I tag most of my work on flickr (4000 images) so I can locate older files. I can edit them even though they would be jpgs. Nicer to tinker with the RAW for sure. You must have a nice PC, because moving from a catalog of 3400 to 24 has made a significant difference to the work/interaction speeds I'm getting. ... View more

During the time taken to get the responses I was in Live Chat with an adobe rep. We created a File>New Catalog and named it something appropriate, and I was even able to select 24 images from the last catalog and port them into the new one. I now have a catalog that has 24 images, an incredibly faster load time and user experience (night and day difference). My old catalog (the only one I've ever had or used) had actually over 3400 images in it (not 2400 I thought, I'm number dyslexic). I cannot possibly go through that old catalog and find missing files etc, I imagine 95% are missing anyway as the majority of files have been moved to the external HDD. I simply don't have the time to do that. You wrote that effectively by creating a new catalog you lose the old edits... this is not correct though is it? What's stopping me at any time from File>Open Catalog, selecting old catalog, and then selecting the image I want to revisit, getting the 'missing file' notification and either manually finding the RAW file from my HDD and putting it back to where the catalog wants it to be, or tell the catalog to 'check out this location for the missing file' and wait a bit? I repeat... in my 2yrs of shooting I have yet to actually want to revisit a file for touch ups, it's not a scenario I am likely to face, but just in case it would be nice to be able to do that. How is having multiple catalogs effectively stopping me from doing this exactly? Where I find 'library' and 'catalogs' handy is when working in a single session/shoot. I edit a shot, choose the style, edit the presets etc, and then for continuation/consistency/speed of work flow purposes use the Sync feature. But once I have done those edits, and a week or two passes, I am unlikely to really revisit those images for tweaks again. ... View more

Does abandoning this current catalog and starting a new one mean I lose the old catalog and the edits? I'm in the middle of editing a session, can I create a New Catalog and move some of the images from the old catalog to the new one? ... View more

I use synchronisation of LR images a lot, so it most definitely is for me, as well as using a fair few paid Presets that I find incredibly useful... but I digress... 1) When I do my Windows Explore moving of files, it's because I am moving other files as well, some musical etc. Using LR to move some of the library files might work, but can it move the export files as well? It seemed to me simpler to use a 3rd party synchronisation software when doing the migrating of files from the SSD to HDD, a one click and it's moving various files. It's made even better because once that sync is complete I start another sync which then makes a back up of the back up . Two clicks, done. So for that reason I am not overly keen to start getting LR to do the moving of files, it's an additional weekly/fortnightly step I don't want to make. 2) I don't want to start a process where I gradually redirect LR to my moved files. I have a library of 2400 files (from this installation alone), I have WAY more files that than, and not ONCE have I actually needed to go back and tinker with an edit from 6-24 months ago. BUT... I would like to be able to, should the situation ever arise (rather than working on that file from scratch). Starting a process whereby I gradually reconnect LR to my moved files sounds awfully like toggling on the HDD's way too often (remember, I like having it off for 95% of the time, turning it on for only half an hour or so once a week/fortnight is preferable). 3) Abandoning the catalog sounds like losing editing work of 2400 files, is this what you're actually suggesting? Can I not turn on my HDD's now, export the library/catalog to the HDD, perhaps not all of it but perhaps 90% of it and store it on the HDD? Then... should I ever need to go back to an edit I can import that catalog back into LR, and locate the file either manually or tell LR to scan 'this folder <points to HDD where the RAW files now live>' let it scan, do it's thing and then edit from where I last left off? Essentially I use the Library feature a lot, but only the past 50-100 images typically. Not 2400. I have a feeling clearing out the library might gain some better performance, but then again it might not, but I think I would find images a little easier than dragging the side scroll bar up and down so much. ... View more

So you manually copy files to the internal SSD and then import them into LR using the Add option in the LR import window? Yup. Or right click a single file > Open With > Lightroom, then once in lightroom check all and import. Please, lemme explain something briefly. I have been using LR and PS for well over a year, once I get to the editing stage I'm pretty competent, I know my ignorance at this particular phase of the program make have you shaking your head in disbelief but there was method to my madness (and may still be). I found (a year or two ago when first experimenting with LR) that the import process was slow, so I went hunting for other software, basically to handle the viewing and culling part of photography. I tried Fastrawviewer and Faststone, staying with Faststone mainly. It seemed to allow me very quickly to view the RAW DNG files and mark/tag the file, what I consider the first phase of culling (i tend to cull a bit more after than). Then once I have culled a good 70% I might then import the remaining 30% into LR (I was slower building at 1:1 previews) and cull some more. I may still opt for this workflow as I can cut down on the build previews significantly with a first swing round of culling. So yeh, even tho I could see Win 10 was offering to import direct from the sd card I never opted for that process, I figured it must copy the files off from the sd card somewhere, otherwise you'd never be able to retrieve your card again without losing the library You use LR to Move the files, and folders they are in if you like, to the external drive. Ah... now we're getting somewhere. So, lets imagine my SSD is getting kinda full, I now want to migrate my initial RAW files along with their finished exported Jpgs to a different drive. All along I have been thinking I manually move the files via windows explorer and LR has a hissy fit not knowing now where to look to find the files so that the library can stay intact. I'll google this process but totally feel free to treat my like an idiot and mansplain this process, I am thick skinned and prefer this way But you don't have to do that. During the import process you can have LR copy them to a folder on the external drive. Alleviating the need to move them later. There is no speed difference having the images on the internal SSD compared to having them on the external drive. Once imported LR never touches the original files. You aren't gaining anything by having images on a SSD. I store all my image files on an internal standard rotating hard drive. With USB 3 the speed of standard rotating external hard drive is about the same as if it was installed inside the computer case and connected directly to a SATA port. I don't have to, but i want to (for reasons explained multiple times before). Ok, so we've established the myth that editing files on the internal SSD is no quicker than an external HDD via USB3, but I still don't want to do that as it involves turning the Quad Dock on from it's awkward location with it's noisy whirring fans on a daily or EOD basis. I of course don't mind toggling these quad docks on once a fortnight or once a week or once a month, but not daily. That's the advantage of a NUC, it's super quiet (and so it should be) if not having to cool multiple HDD's all the time. Ah... now here's where you can help clarify something more for me. You say I'm not gaining anything by having the images on the SSD, but don't I need them there to actually edit? Because if we remove the files after importing are we not giving way to the 'missing file' issue? Does the import do so much more in LR, so that once I have the files imported I could actually rid myself of the RAW files (on the internal SSD) and edit away? I didn't think that was possible...? I understand that the original RAW files imported are not themselves altered (you'd have to do an export DNG/RAW for that? But I always understood that LR would need to be able to access/see the files in order to use Develop mode. You really don't understand how LR is designed to work and how to properly work with LR. Nop, not in this specific aspect (otherwise I wouldn't be posting here hehehe). I'm fairly competent in the develop mode however. I think you should look for some other piece of software for your needs. I won't be doing that, I have the subscription to LR, PS and I use the Adobe Portfolio, I also have a number of Topaz Plugins that I like to use and take advantage from time to time. I find LR a little more user friendly than PS and I know my way around it better than some other software. It's all just from a case of file management and handling of the catalog that I need educated in. I am genuinely thankful for the help and assistance thus far, even tho it may appear I am being awkward that is not my intention, I am just trying to manage my physical work space effectively and rid myself of constant annoyances (even tho these translate to another variety of pest but in my mind is definitely more preferred). ... View more

JimHess  wrote Do you mean if you import to the external hard drive? But yes, as soon as you import to the external hard drive that folder on the external hard drive will be added to the library. I suppose it would add exports as well as long as you are adding them to your catalog. That's something I usually don't do. Bit confused here, typically you import from not to? I'm meaning I will only ever import from the internal ssd (ideally), I will also export to the same internal ssd. Yet when I have moved the files to another HDD, how can I get LR to keep track of that 'move' (without having to clear the library and re add manually all over again). I think much of the confusion here stems from the part that LR does not automatically/watch and import files from a directory, you have to manually do it. You can't tell it to watch 'x' folder and if it fills up with files add them to the library. And if the current library has files missing, then remove them etc. Lots of other software, file sharing/streaming software for example might ask for directories where they 'watch' and any content added ore remove from that is reflected in the programs library. I'm kinda hoping LR would be like this, it notices the files are no longer on C: but is keeping an eye on F: and can see the same filenames etc so they still are accessible (of course provided the external hdd is turned on). The computer i have has a direct SD card reader, I would like to input the card from the camera into the SD Card on the NUC, set it to 'automatically import' when I do that, or copy the contents from the sd card over to the internal ssd, get LR to import the files from there, do the cull, do the edit, do the export (same drive), and have them sitting there for awhile before transferring (move not copy) the files off the ssd to an external. I want to do this as I edit and photograph often, but I do not want the whirr and noise and hassle of turning on additional computing equipment, if I wanted fan noise all day I would just stay with a desktop tower and have the hdd's housed inside. I think I'm just going to have to do some testing with LR... ... View more

JimHess  wrote dunker56   wrote JimHess    wrote I'll only make one comment about importing your images directly to the external hard drive. You won't notice any difference in performance if you do that. The catalog should be on a hard drive that performs well and has plenty of room. Your images can be distributed across several external hard drives, and that won't impact performance at all. Ok, still won't transfer the files direct to the HDD everything due to point 2) that I brought up, but nice to know that you think there isn't any difference in my machine specs and using the internal SSD to do stuff like build previews vs USB>HDD. How do I go about telling LR to 'watch' another location/directory then? Or doesn't it quite work like that? I'm a little confused over the whole Library/catalog. If I'm importing pics from the directories mentioned above, and exporting them also (both of which are the internal SSD), once they're moved to another HDD, how does LR 'find them'? What do you mean tell Lightroom to watch another location? All you have to do is choose that external hard drive as the destination and it will show up in your library module. You just choose that folder on the external hard drive like you would any other folder. It's possible to have your images spread across multiple hard drives Lightroom doesn't care where the images are located. If you want to put the folders on the external hard drive before you import them, that works too. Ah ok, so if I have this right, initially all my exports are to my internal SSD, if I export even just ONE picture to the External HDD, then LR will consider that a directory and add any files in that location to its library? ... View more

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Conrad+C  wrote There are a couple of places where your conclusions are not necessarily related to some observations you've made: dunker56   wrote 1) First thing is the import, and then loupe mode and start the culling. I've watched a few youtube tutorials on this, what I'm finding is the process when marking/tagging a file (x or p) is slow and laggy unless I build previews. That 1:1 preview building takes quite a lot of time… Many YouTube tutorials on this subject became outdated when Lightroom Classic came out in October. It is true that you used to have to build 1:1 previews before you could cull quickly, and no one liked that delay. But in Lightroom Classic, you can now import with the Build Previews option set to "Embedded & Sidecar". With that setting, Lightroom will actually use the previews that were embedded into the raw files by the camera. These are the same previews that Faststone, Photo Mechanic, and others use, so when you use Embedded & Sidecar previews in Lightroom, culling is reasonably fast in Lightroom. The only reason Lightroom didn't use those embedded previews earlier is because they don't match what the Lightroom raw engine would render. But if you're just culling, the exact appearance doesn't matter, so using embedded previews becomes acceptable. If you start editing an image, Lightroom replaces the embedded preview with its own, so that you can accurately see your edits. dunker56   wrote 2) What i've noticed is the larger the catalog the longer times to load LR and performance in general. LR from my experience works better if restarted after an hour or so, and where possible deleting files from the library and keeping the library picture count down. According to Adobe and many others, catalog size doesn't affect performance. But what you might actually be seeing is a problem Lightroom has had, specifically in Windows, where it gets slower over time during the same session and would have to be restarted. This specific slowdown is something Adobe has been working on for an upcoming release. In other words, what you're seeing is probably true, but the actual cause may be different than what you've concluded. There is no need to keep the library picture count down. I'm approaching 100,000 files in my catalog, and there are many Lightroom users who have catalogs containing several times more images than I have. Excellent! This sounds like what I am looking for, will look into that and yes no doubt outdated info. And your observations about LR being slower once the catalog is binned vs restarts could also be true, tho I am sure the increase in speed and efficiency was felt immediately after an empty before a restart, but this was awhile ago now (different pc, different specs). ... View more

dj_paige  wrote Ok so first off I won't be adding the files from the camera straight onto the external disks, for two reasons; 1) Speed. I'm no techy but I am imagining having the raw files on the internal ssd (960 evo NVMe 250gb M2) will be a faster and smoother editing process than through USB 3 to HDDs. I could of course be completely wrong, that in reality there is no efficiency by having the files on the same disk as LR, as I said I'm no techy, I'm basing this on perhaps 'old days' mentality and I am not wholly up to date with todays tech. There is no noticeable speed difference. There is no efficiency in having the files on the same disk, other than a trivial amount that you will never notice. I want the Dock to be in RAID and then once a week or fortnight it's turned on and stuff migrated off the internal SSD (to create space once again) and onto that. Unnecessary extra work, plus possibility of making errors. Put the photos right on the external HD when they come out of the camera, make your life simple. what I'm finding is the process when marking/tagging a file (x or p) is slow and laggy unless I build previews Yes, of course, this is by design. Somewhere along the way, if you want to see the photo in loupe mode, the computer has to do some work to render the photo the proper size and with the proper details. You can generate the 1:1 previews on import, and then import takes longer; or you can generate the 1:1 previews on the fly, as your are doing, and then the culling process takes longer. It's your choice, but you can't avoid having the computer do the work to allow you to see the photo in loupe mode properly. What i've noticed is the larger the catalog the longer times to load LR and performance in general. LR from my experience works better if restarted after an hour or so, and where possible deleting files from the library and keeping the library picture count down. There are many causes of slowness. Catalog size is not one of them (exception: making backups). Your entire discussion seems to be fighting against the way Lightroom is designed to work. If you really don't like the way Lightroom is designed to work, then you need to use other software, like Bridge, for example. If you are going to use Lightroom, don't fight it, find a workflow (as we have advised) that works with Lightroom's features instead of against it. I appreciate your time to reply. I have however stipulated that I won't do this, I understand I am being somewhat difficult, you are not obliged to help me any further if it pains you. However I will say this; Even if I had a 500gb or 1tb internal SSD, you eventually run into this problem media needs to be moved off to create more room, but you still want the program to find the moved media. That's all I'm really asking for at this time, how to do this with LR. Its the reason I opted for a smaller SSD than paying twice or four times for a 500gb or 1tb SSD, I can work with a 100gb 'buffer' of space on this internal SSD, when it gets close to that, migrate the media away. This way I am not subjected to constant whirring of fans on a daily basis, nor reaching to switch the HDD on or off constantly. I guess Faststone is just using jpg previews which is why its so quick to fire up the pics and let me have a quick look around during the culling process. Is it perhaps (for my purposes) overkill to be building 1:1 previews at this time? I noticed in the menu there is 'Standard-Sized' and 'Smart' previews, are these quicker and give a general idea of the shot taken? Well, it's been awhile since I removed say 700 shots from the catalog, it definitely made loading times and the whole LR experience smoother and quicker once emptying that library. I guess the experience of this process will be user dependent, the specs of the machine and what not, it certainly wasn't imagined. I don't think I'm fighting against Lightroom's 'design', a few people here have hinted that LR can 'point' to many different places for its catalog, no one seems to be actually holding my hand tightly enough to guide me through this process. Let's pretend I have a 500 pictures in the library, all of them consist of being edited and adjusted (raw files), they are located; C:\Users\xxxx\Pictures\Pentax In. Each of those RAW files has been exported as a Jpg, those files exist here; C:\Users\xxxx\Pictures\Pentax Out. It's clear out time. I move (not copy) both of those directories to my external hdd. Now i know when I boot LR up, the pictures might look like they are there in the library, but as soon as I go to edit a file it'll say something like 'file missing'. It is going to be very seldom I ever actually need to revisit these files again, but on the off chance that I do I would like LR to be able to see them (of course realising that this means I need to toggle on the Quad Dock so that it can find them again). How and is this possible? That's now the crux of my post. ... View more

JimHess  wrote I'll only make one comment about importing your images directly to the external hard drive. You won't notice any difference in performance if you do that. The catalog should be on a hard drive that performs well and has plenty of room. Your images can be distributed across several external hard drives, and that won't impact performance at all. Ok, still won't transfer the files direct to the HDD everything due to point 2) that I brought up, but nice to know that you think there isn't any difference in my machine specs and using the internal SSD to do stuff like build previews vs USB>HDD. How do I go about telling LR to 'watch' another location/directory then? Or doesn't it quite work like that? I'm a little confused over the whole Library/catalog. If I'm importing pics from the directories mentioned above, and exporting them also (both of which are the internal SSD), once they're moved to another HDD, how does LR 'find them'? ... View more