P: Export images at multiple resolutions in one go

Funny how your attitude doesn't explain other topics having many more votes.... For some reason this one has relatively few, and the simplest explanation is often the right one. Maybe people aren't as interested in it as you and I might want.

John Ellis,

Thanks for Adobesplaining how to check how people have “voted”.

The point here is that I have been visiting these forums looking for this and similar problems for a decade, and there’s always a few dozen people before me who’ve asked for the same thing and someone’s else has conveniently gaslighted them by saying it’s an invalid workflow or invalid request or something like that. Basically, torching anything valid that is requested.

This ticket is one of those. And that’s why it has a low number of votes, because everyone has basically lost hope and they don’t even think it would make a difference if they up vote.

So what did I do all these years, I closed my browser and went back. Finally I had enough and I logged in and vented out.

As I said before, I'm not expressing an opinion on this feature request. 

John Ellis, given that I make my living in photography, I'm after productivity with Lightroom.  Surely it's not a difficult task to implement this specific request.  I can say this from the point of view of having been a software developer for over 20 years.  With the revenue stream Adobe is enjoying from the switch to a subscription model, I can't see this being a matter of not having the resources to implement this suggestion, but rather (and obviously I'm guessing here) not thinking it's important enough to implement.  But it's important to me.  Especially during the summer months, I'd rather be outside than in front of my computer waiting for Lightroom.  So with each passing year that goes by without the productivity improvements and feature suggestions that would make my life easier, I grow less and less enamored with the Adobe model.  If Adobe doesn't care, why should we bother spending time making these feature suggestions that don't go anywhere?

"I'm willing to bet that 42 votes represents a tiny fraction of people who would find the feature helpful -- and who bothered to comment or vote."

It surely does represent a small fraction of those who would favor the feature. But Adobe uses this forum as one of several ways of gauging relative user preferences, and I think it does an OK (but far from perfect) job at that.

To see how people have voted over the years for features:

1. Go here: 
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/categories/photoshop_family_photoshop_lightroom

2. Click the search button (magnifying glass) without any search terms.

3. Click Advanced Search, enter these options, and click Search:





(I don't have a strong opinion about this topic's feature request.)

Not to be negative, but I do agree with you, Rick.  When I first started asking questions on the Lightroom forums, I was taken aback how the pervasive attitude of many seems to be that everything is great in the Lightroom world.  Which clearly it's not.  I use Lightroom every day for many hours, and deal with bugs and having to changing my workflow to account for Lightroom's shortcomings -- while the "Adobe apologists" (great terminology, by the way) question why anyone would want to do what you want Lightroom to do.  Well, because it would make things more efficient.  Is that goal really so insane?

Among my circles of photographers, many have switched to other, more agile, more customer-centric products.  I keep paying my fee to Adobe every month, but not happily.

And John, I'm willing to bet that 42 votes represents a tiny fraction of people who would find the feature helpful -- and who bothered to comment or vote.

Agreed.

I've given up hope that small, useful features like this will be added.

42 votes in 8 years - that's probably all you need to know. More people wanted to move their Develop panels around. I don't agree with that any more than you might, but I'd contend that serious photographers' need for multiple resolutions for online content has fallen as more hosting services and web apps have got better at that task. Anyway, this is a place for feature requests and you don't get anywhere starting out by insulting fellow customers. Arguments are next door, room 12A....

Please don’t twist my words. Some day, I hope you will set aside the attack mode and figure out that I’m upset with Adobe and their defenders.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen them simply ignoring a request or a problem. Performance, multiple album sync, and many more issues have been brushed aside. And why would they bother to listen, when they have experienced apologists coming to their defence and attacking anyone else who eventually gets upset with them? No sooner does someone on this forum ask for something good along comes someone else from the community to shoot it down or to say that it’s not a problem for “them” thus saying no one else is allowed to call it a problem.

What you’ve been trying here is a prime example of that. You brushed away this problem by likening it to something totally silly, when you don’t have any right to belittle what others are saying. Definitely not you job to be defending Adobe.

I’m not a fan of writing plugins when I’m paying a software vendor to make that feature available.

In fact you’ve proven my point - if it is indeed so easy why wouldn’t they just get done with it?

Why’s it basic? It’s basic because in this day and age any photographer who adds content online will need multiple resolutions of the same image and it is a pain to keep doing that. When I know that the software creator has smart people working for them, it is expected that they would already be aware of this, else they are not smart.
So given that they are smart, and given that they haven’t made this available for the modern SM&web-focused photographers, I can safely say they are making fools of their customers, especially if it is as easy as you mentioned .

Thanks for the help in making the point.

Finally, someone above genuinely asked what could be a good approach and there were reasonable responses to it. Where did that go? If Adobe is not going to even bother I’m well within my rights to get upset with them.