enhance export dialog to improve workflow: add vitual copy instead of exported file to the catalogue

Check out the plugin Snapshot on Export by Jeffrey Friedl: https://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/snapshot-on-export

It can't make a virtual copy, but you might find some of the options useful. I started using it so I could automatically add a color label and do some other things to keep a record of when I exported files, as Lightroom Classic didn't have the Exported Files metadata filter until very recently. It should be helpful in lieu of Lightroom supporting the functionality natively, which I agree would be preferable. I really like the plugin, though.

If what you mean is that a virtual copy is created and no actual file is created, then if Adobe did this they probably wouldn't do it in the Export dialog box. The Export dialog box is currently designed to create actual copies that can be seen on the desktop and in other applications.

If you mean you want to export a file copy and also create a virtual copy, that’s a little unusual; I don’t think anything like that exists in other photo software.

richardplondon’s idea might be a better approach: Create virtual copies first, apply the metadata to them, and let those auto-organize your exports. Apply that metadata in the Library module, then build Smart Collections that auto-collect the images needed for each job based on the metadata (client, label, rating…), and then all you have to do at export time is select a collection, select everything in it, and then export from those collections.

Note that virtual copies have a metadata field called Copy Name. You might want to take advantage of that to help distinguish which client or job the virtual copy is for. And, when you create a Smart Collection, Copy Name is metadata you can filter on to help auto-organize your export jobs.

It’s understood that these exports are not kept. That’s common. The export presets I set up for those images send them to a subfolder of a parent folder that’s only used for export for delivery to clients, so once in a while I can simply throw out all of the folders in there. It’s also possible to use separate background software that automatically empties that folder at intervals (e.g. every week).

I do see a precedent in Lightroom Classic similar to your request: Proof copies. This is a type of virtual copy where output-specific settings such as output profile and rendering intent are stored in a virtual copy; in other words, proof copies are designed to let you store multiple print scenarios per image, similar to how you want to store multiple export scenarios per image. So Adobe has already valued this type of virtual copy, for print. Maybe you could convince Adobe to extend proof copies to include the types of non-print output-specific data you want to store.

The next step would be for you to submit this type of request to the actual feature request area (Ideas) in this community, or maybe a moderator will move it there. (This thread is currently in a discussion/problem solving section, not a feature request section.) Be aware that your request will be competing with hundreds of others, and also competing with Adobe product development priorities for development time. A lot depends on whether a large number of other users need the same thing. If you can make a good case and maybe gather more upvotes than other top requests (which have hundreds of votes), maybe this request will happen.

In the meantime, maybe some of the ideas above can help you achieve much of your goal with existing features, such as combining metadata, Smart Collections, and export presets in the workflow.

A small extension to the export dialogue could greatly simplify the entire workflow:
Instead of the exported file, it should be possible to add a new virtual copy to the catalogue and to specify the following properties of the copy in the export dialogue box
- a name for the copy
- assign a colour and/or star rating,
- add the copy to a collection.

With all due respect, these three actions are not export options because they can all be done in the Library Module. I certainly object to making them the default.