P: Please let us make "destructive" changes to our images

Steve, what is the final destination for these files? What happens once you export them ? I’m only asking as maybe moving over to the Cloud Based Lightroom CC Desktop would help and the recipient can either download a JPG from a shared link or from LrCC Web?

I may be off the mark here though but it would save you exporting?

I'm using JPEG so overwriting should be simple, and optional, retaining all metadata. There wouldn't be any danger unless you make a mistake, and human error is always the greatest danger.

How specifically would this change "the foundation"?? And what evidence supports the claim that Adobe didn't do this to increase sales of Photoshop? I bet their developer could knock this out in a few hours. Cataloging and editing is the job and that's what LR does. I would just like to be able to overwrite more simply.

Does Photoshop have a catalog? I tried Photoshop Elements for years but even recent versions of that program are horribly slow with a very much smaller catalog. If I remember right, even Elements let you save changes to the original images.

Steve,
I agree with you...I also don't see a credible downside on a workflow perspective. Its similar to compressing layers in ps. and like any tool, if used incorrectly will cause more harm than good. So don't use the tool or learn to use it the right way.

John's comment about cumulative degradation in you edit and resave the same jpeg. but if you are only doing one edit and done, then that should not be a problem.

7K images is a very small catalog. Perhaps Photoshop would be a better option for you. It fully supports destructive operations. Non destructive editing is part of Lightroom's dna.

You answered your own question. Lightroom is designed with raw files in mind. And burning edits into a jpeg means re-saving the jpeg, which causes extra degradation because of the lossy compression.

I shoot JPEG, not raw. And I don't think this has anything to do with any "foundation". It's just another button in a bewildering sea of buttons, and hot spots, and drop downs, and checkmarks. And if the option is there then I don't need to buy anything else... :). And if it's buried somewhere then the traditional LR workflow is not affected and nobody is in danger. It's simple.

Because it has very good cataloging / organizing features and there are more than enough picture editing features built-in for my needs. The reviews I trust like LR.

I have 40+ years of family & friends & places photos to organize and edit. I'm not a pro, as you can see by my low number of posts. But I have used Lightroom for a few years now. And I am a technical director and software developer with a degree in computer science and I live in the change control process.

I'm using JPEG, not RAW. I don't shoot in Raw for the same reason I don't run Lightroom and Photoshop at the same time--too slow, too complicated, for too little payoff (because I'm not a pro). The only way I'm ever going to make it big in photography is if something very special is happening and nobody else is there. The main reason I use Lightroom is for cataloging, but also for edits. I will continue to use the clunky export process in LR, rather than buy/learn another software package. I already spend too much time on the computer.

Regardless, I still haven't seen a credible downside presented that makes sense. I'm sure there are a thousand features you don't use. What's the problem with one more? Nobody will "lose" data that unless they explicitly chose to overwrite. And this certainly would not be any kind of software rewrite. It would simply be a new method that ties together functionality that already exists, and burying it somewhere that it won't accidentally be invoked. I'm guessing a day or two of developer time.

And yes, it wouldn't work for Raw files...

I do follow you! It's an evidence. Suggestion made by Steve is against what any photographer like the most