Export jpeg not as jpg

[CarolynBall]

I imported jpeg photos from my IPhone using a Windows 11 computer. I've made edits to the photos in Lightroom Classic and now I want to export the photos to the same folder.  When I do so, Lightroom converts them to jpg.  So now I have the old photo jpeg and an edited photo jpg. There must be a setting so that I can put them back as jpeg.  Jpg is old naming convention so I suspect there is a place I can change in Lightroom Classic Settings

[Keith Reeder]

"When I do so, Lightroom converts them to jpg"

Odd - "jpg" isn't even an available string in the Image Format drop-down:

But in any event:

"There must be a setting so that I can put them back as jpeg. "

And this is it.

[CarolynBall]

Yes, I have it set to JPEG but it converts it to a jpg as you can see below.  Any other ideas? I was using LRC 12.4 and just updated to 13.0.2.  That didn't change it. 

[Keith Reeder]

"I have it set to JPEG but it converts it to a jpg as you can see below"

No, not really - where are we looking, exactly?

[Per Berntsen]

The Windows File explorer will display the jpeg extension as jpg. Is that what you're referring to?

It does not affect the image in any way, and is nothing to be concerned about.

[Keith Reeder]

Doh!

That should have been an easy catch.  😄

Good call, Per.

[CarolynBall]

Yes, I know that it doesn't affect the photo, but it means that I now have two photos, one jpeg and one jpg and I have to go and delete any duplicates by hand.  I don't edit every photo so not every photo has a edited jpg edited so it is very confusing.  

[Per Berntsen]

I don't understand. When you export from LrC, only one image is exported. It may display the jpeg extensions in some applications, and the jpg extension in other applications, but it's still the same image.

How did you come to the conclusion that this is two separate images?

[CarolynBall]

Only 1 image is exported.  So I guess what everyone is saying is that I cannot replace my old photo with a new edited photo no matter what.  So how does everyone else put files in folders once they have been edited.  Does everyone have two in a folder, the original and a new edited one?  

[Per Berntsen]

There is no need to export every image that you edit, the edits are saved in the catalog. You can always go back to the image and re-edit – fine tune your existing edits, or remove all edits and start over.

I only export when I need to use an image for something, like printing, publishing online, or attaching to an email. Once the exported image has served its purpose, I usually delete it. Should the need arise, it's easy to export it again.

[Lumigraphics]

For one, many of us shoot RAW and not JPEG format. (RAW support on the iPhone is mixed and depends on which model you have.) But yes, ORIGINAL images are kept unless you manually delete them.

I shoot RAW and save retouched images from Photoshop. I almost never export from Lightroom.

[Keith Reeder]

"but it means that I now have two photos"

Hmmm...

As Per points out, it's not clear how that's possible: Lr is only exporting one file, it's just that Windows Explorer is displaying the file suffix of the file Lr has put out, differently.

Where are you even seeing a file with a "jpeg" suffix along one with "jpg", given Explorer's default behaviour?

Screen print, please.

[CarolynBall]

In File Explorer I now have two files for each picutre that I edited.  i don't want.  I want LRC to replace the old unedited jpeg with a new edited jpeg.  here is the example.of what happens.  I now have two files, the original jpeg and the edited jpg.  I can't go in and just sort and eliminate the original jpeg because I actually don't edit every single phot on LRC.  Again, the question is why is LRC doing this.  Anybody have a phone number for Adobe? Chatbots don't really get at my question

[Jim Wilde]

I want LRC to replace the old unedited jpeg with a new edited jpeg.  

By @CarolynBall

As I said in another post, I don't believe that LrC will allow that to happen, even if the file extension of the exported file matched the extension of the original. Certainly that's been my experience whenever I've tested it.

[Keith Reeder]

But the file sizes are different, Carolyn - they're self-evidently not two copies of the same file, and Lr will not generate two different copies of a file of its own volition.

[Keith Reeder]

"I want LRC to replace the old unedited jpeg with a new edited jpeg"

Can't, won't and never will. To do so would be utterly to fly in the face of the concept of non-destructive editing.

Remember that Lr is at its core a RAW converter - rule no. 1 about a RAW workflow: you always keep the original.

The fact that you happen to be using jpegs and are expecting a different outcome, is just using Lr in a way it's fundamentally not designed for. 

[JohanElzenga]

In File Explorer I now have two files for each picutre that I edited.  i don't want.  I want LRC to replace the old unedited jpeg with a new edited jpeg.  here is the example.of what happens.  I now have two files, the original jpeg and the edited jpg.  I can't go in and just sort and eliminate the original jpeg because I actually don't edit every single phot on LRC.  Again, the question is why is LRC doing this.  Anybody have a phone number for Adobe? Chatbots don't really get at my question

By @CarolynBall

The reason why Lightroom does not allow this is simple. Lightroom makes non-destructive edits. The edits are stored in the catalog, the originals (regardless of whether these are raw files or jpeg files) will remain untouched. When you export the image as a new file, the edits will be applied to the pixels of that exported file. So suppose Lightroom would allow you to overwrite the original with the exported image. What would happen is that the original gets replaced by a new image that has the edits applied to the pixels. But the non-destructive edits are still in the catalog too. So all of a sudden your image in Lightroom would have all edits doubled, once 'baked into the pixels' of the replaced original and once as the non-destructive edits in the catalog. That does not make sense and would be very confusing.

[F. McLion]

As far as I know, jpg and jpeg are in fact the same. You can simply use both endings.

jpg is back from when Microsoft OS did only support 3 letters for file extensions.

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raster/jpeg-file.html#

[F. McLion]

... excerpt from the linked webpage:

JPGs and JPEGs are the same. The three-letter file extension was due to the limitations of older versions of Windows and MS-DOS. All file extensions were limited to three characters — today, this is no longer the case.

[Keith Reeder]

True, they are the same - I'm assuming this is just the OP preferring one suffix over another:

"Jpg is old naming convention"

[F. McLion]

I suspect the OP tries to use LrC in a way it is not designed for.

-> Not caring about originals and wanting LrC to replace originals with the edited ones.

[Jim Wilde]

I suspect the OP tries to use LrC in a way it is not designed for.

-> Not caring about originals and wanting LrC to replace originals with the edited ones.

By @F. McLion

That was my assumption also, though I don't believe that LrC would allow the original to be overwritten by the exported version even if the filenames (including extension) were the same. This is what happens when I tried:

[Keith Reeder]

Where are you quoting that from? I can't see it in what Carolyn has written.

[Jim Wilde]

As I said, it was an assumption based on the original post, and since confirmed by the OP.

[Keith Reeder]

I was asking F.McLion, Jim -he expressed it in the form of a quote, not an assumption:

"I suspect the OP tries to use LrC in a way it is not designed for.

-> Not caring about originals and wanting LrC to replace originals with the edited ones."