How can I save a photo in lightroom by replacing original?

[melk28]

I have a folder of product photos I want to edit. I used to export and change the name, but today I do not want to do that. I want to over ride the original photo, but everytime I try and export I select "exisiting photos- override without warning" but when I press export it says it can't do it because it will replace the exisiting file. How do I replace the exisiting file without running into this issue?

[dj_paige]

Well, I think the advice everyone in this forum will give you is to NEVER overwrite your originals.

If they are RAW, they cannot be overwritten by LR. If they are JPG, you can overwrite (I'm not going to tell you how because I could not live with myself) but overwriting a JPG original with an edited original destroys the usefulness of Lightroom for this photo. It is doubly a bad thing to do.

[melk28]

With my normal photography I share on my site and social media I never override originals. For side hustles like my online shop I don't want double of every angle of my product.

[dj_paige]

Here's the problem with overwriting JPG files:

Let's suppose you edit the file in Lightroom Classic, and you increase the exposure by +0.5. This change is written into the LR Classic database. Then you export it and overwrite the original. The exported file shows the +0.5 exposure change, which is "baked in" and the pixels are actually changed. But Lightroom Classic thinks the original is now the exported version that overwrote the original with +0.5 exposure, and so LR adds what is in its database (Exposure change of +0.5) to the appearance of what it thinks is the original (but is really not the original, it is the export). Now LR displays this image with a 1.0  exposure change.

This is not good, and I don't think it is what you want or intend, and it is not recommended. In fact, I would avoid doing this like the plague.

[John R Ellis]

[This post contains embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser to see the images.]

In my own workflow, I agree with dj_paige and would never delete originals. But it sounds like you understand the issues.

"I select "exisiting photos- override without warning" but when I press export it says it can't do it because it will replace the exisiting file."

Interesting, that seems like a bug to me.

Assuming you want to overwrite JPEG originals with exported versions, here's an alternate method:

1. Export the photos into a subfolder using these options:

2. Use Finder / File Exploer to move the exported photos from that subfolder back into the parent folder.

3. Select all the photos and do the menu command Photo > Develop Settings > Reset to clear all the develop settings from the catalog, which are now "baked in" to the exported photos.  

[Use the reply button under the first post to ensure replies sort properly.]

[richardplondon]

(cancel)

[GoldingD]

Have you considered creating virtual copy's and editing thise.

[GoldingD]

Might be a bit of confusion revolving around the use of the word original.

Are you actualy trying to replace the original photo that came from your camera? Or, are you seeing your first exported photo after initial edits as an original?

Replacing the first basicaly a sin

Replacing the second no big deal.

[stefpix]

I have the same issue. I have folders with exported JPGs I want to resize. I have the original RAW files in separate folder/catalogs.

I just want to resize the exported JPGs to a smaller size to save space.

I used to be able to do it quickly and easily with iView Media Pro. It would load images is folders and subfolders and there was an option to write over the original file. Apple Preview can not load images in subfolders. I did a LR catalog of the exports folder with the subfolder, but there is no way to rewrite the originals. More than 10 years ago there was an freeware app for Mac that would resize all the images in folders/subfolders with the option to overwrite them. Now I don't see anything.

Unless I do each subfolder individually with preview, but it is not worth my time.

I wish LR would allow in some case overwriting originals.

[Rob_Cullen]

Another (dangerous?) approach might be to use Photoshop to resize the JPG files.

Define an Action that resizes (image pixel size) first, then run an Automated Batch Action on a folder of the JPG images.

My example (Pixel Dimensions to 50%)- Before and After: (it need not be 50%- could be 75%)

   

I agree totally with- "NEVER overwrite your originals."

[barborav67903681]

I just wanted to add that original doesn't have to mean the original from the camera, but original file before export.

I have to save space on my website so the best way for me is to import all these files into lightroom and export them with compression and resize settings. It reduce 30-50% of the size without loosing visible quality. But its time consuming, that I can't replace them directly, but have to make different folder and then replace them by hand... So you can live with yourself when you give out that information :). It doesn't always mean deleting your camera files.

[dj_paige]

I'm afraid this doesn't make much sense to me.

What is on your website has no impact on Lightroom Classic. Furthermore, exporting to achieve size reduction is fine for the website, but then when you replace the files, the information in the original files is lost.

[Shaylynn22892440us3c]

I think you're the one not making sense here, and are being a bit pedantic for no reason. It is perfectly reasonable to copy/paste photos from your SD card, then want to only keep the edited versions, wheras your SD card is safe and sound, never deleted.

[richardplondon]

Perfectly reasonable and perfectly compatible with a file-centric workflow - though many people may dispute whether a SD card is an appropriate long-term storage location for camera original data.

But LrClassic is a library-centric workflow, with which that idea is not so compatible, inherently. 

IMO it is not pedantic to draw and explain that distinction, and to advocate for complete clarity on this. Trying to force a system into working against its own design principles and approach, will surely just be a recipe for frustration. Which such advice is honestly trying to reduce.

Lr Classic works as intended when used as intended.

[Aman224089263mjx]

I also want an easier way to just edit the original images. I don't care what you all think. This is my PC, my copy of software, my pictures. And I do not care if I lose all my images and incur a loss. I don't care if it kills my parents. I want to edit the original directly. Out of the camera, destructive editing, using Lightroom. How do I do that? (Export is a workaround)
I hope I won't receive any consultation on why I shouldn't do this. Please only respond if you have an answer. Regards

[richardplondon]

Nondestructive editing methods are deliberately made so that they cannot be used destructively.

There is no "how" for something that is logically impossible.

Analogy: if someone asked "how can I use Move (not Copy) to duplicate a file using Finder / Explorer". That question would be unanswerable since 'Move' is defined as the method which does not duplicate, and 'Copy' as the method which does duplicate.

[JohanElzenga]

I think that my analogy would be this. Suppose somebody said: "I don't care what other people say, I want to use a screwdriver to hammer these nails into a piece of wood". Would it be pedantic of me to answer that perhaps a hammer would be a better tool? If somebody wants to 'bake edits into the pixels' of an image and then replace the original with that edited image, then I would simply advise using other software. Because Lightroom is that screwdriver and overwriting originals with edited images is driving those nails into wood.

[richardplondon]

Not quite IMO. A screwdriver physically could be used to whack nails into a piece of wood. We can have a conversation about whether this is a good idea or not, and may end up not agreeing - such things being a matter of opinion and of circumstances.

But to use LrC to directly modify the imported files is neither a good idea nor a bad idea, since that cannot be done at all. Given that is not circumstantially the case but deliberately so, on the part of Adobe, it is very unlikely to become circumventable by users. So there is no such matter-of-opinion conversation to be had (assuming everyone accepts the practical situation). We could still have if-only-things-were-different conversations of course, but where would that get us!?

[JohanElzenga]

Quite frankly I think that is nitpicking (using a screwdriver to whack nails into a piece of wood may drive you to hospital faster than that nail into wood) and that the message is clear. If you want to do something, then use the right tools. There is nothing wrong with wanting to overwrite the originals. They are your originals, so you can do with them whatever you want. Even if other people think it's a bad idea. But do not complain that a screwdriver does not (at least not in a practical sense) allow you to drive nails into wood, or expect the manufacturer to change the design. Use a hammer.

[Aman224089263mjx]

Why MUST I use the right tools? I dont want to. I have my reasons. And I have made it very clear that I dont want that advice. Why still? Why must people speak even if they don't have anything to contribute?

[Aman224089263mjx]

Lets say I have to drive to Switzerland from Italy because all other public modes of transport are not operational. Some kind of dystopian context. I only have a tractor. There is no way I can arrange a car. Are yoy saying that I should just not go?

P.s. I have used screwdrivers to hammer nails. More than once. And it was always easier than going out and buying a hammer. To this date I dont have a hammer because I dont really need it that often. When I do I find a piece of stone, brick, a padlock, or a screwdriver with a chunky grip. Point being I am not one of those people who won't do something until they have the right tools. I will try with I have, I will build the MVP, and then I will improve. 

What doesn't make sense to me is how braindead this community is?

[Aman224089263mjx]

I think the answer should have only been "Destructive editing is not possible with Lightroom". I don't think it's true yet but if you think it is true just state the facts. If I am looking to make a bomb to, don't advise me that it's dangerous. Either don't respond or respond with saying that the bomb cant be made.

[ManiacJoe]

richardplondon  gave you the correct answer. Destructive editing is not possible with Lightroom. Staying with Adobe products, you would need to use Photoshop which does destructive editing.