• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
5

How do I save Lightroom image edits in source file?

Guest
Feb 18, 2012 Feb 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My experience with the trial version of lightroom is very positive in terms of the convenient and powerful capabilities for editing images and the associated metadata.  But I can't find a way to save the "develop" edits to images into the source file for the photo I am working with.  So far, I am able to save the metadata into the file but not the image editing.  From what I read, I fear this is not possible without silly round about exporting to new files then copying / moving multiple copies around, etc. Without this ability, I am pretty sure I will not purchase lightroom and will miss out on all the powerful features.  Without an OPTION that turns on the equivalent of a SAVE button, managing my photos collection would be a nightmare. 

So my question is: How do I save the edited (i.e., developed) version of a photo back into the same file where the original photo was stored?

Please, please spare me all the reponses telling me how stupid I am for wanting to do this and that the cognisenti and professionals would NEVER do this.    But please just tell me there is a secret place to turn on this option in lightroom.

Thanks in advance.

Views

126.4K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

People's Champ , Feb 18, 2012 Feb 18, 2012

Papa Ben,

LR stores everything you do in its catalog. The word "catalog" in LR--speak denotes not your images but the data base where LR stores everything. This data base (the catalog) is a file with the ending < .lrcat> and you can see where it is located by going to >Edit >Catalog Settings >General tab.

This storing or saving to the catalog is happening constantly and automatically and you do not have to hit a <save> button.

Stored or saved in the catalog are your edits and everything regarding i

...

Votes

Translate

Translate
Mentor ,
Feb 18, 2012 Feb 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Papa Ben wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, Lee.   But I've had too much experience with databases to trust them with all that hard work.

Backup the database, and write out the XMP data.  That's two-fault tolerant.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Your observation on Adobe not saving the changes of their program changes to a database is probably not correct. There are versioning systems that are actually database driven that programming teams use. In your imagined scenario, how would a bunch of programmers working on different aspects of the same program be able to simultaneously perform their jobs?

I know my comments are not entirely germane to this thread topic but too often when reading threads on various forums an individual comes across as a self proclaimed expert in every field attempting to prove their superiority over folks who are simply trying to help them.

Open your mind to the possibility that your way may not be the only way of doing things or may not even be the best way of doing things. Gather input from others and then make the decision as to what is best for you.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi RickBu,  You are right.  The fact is that my original question has been answered -- even if it was not the answer I was hoping for.  Lightroom does not let me save my develop edits by overwriting the source file.  I appreciate suggested work arounds, and will try out the ones that might work for me, then make a decision when my Lightroom trial period is over.  It doesn't do any good for me to explain why a suggestion doesn't work for me.  Worse, it apparently comes across as my saying others should do things the way I do.  That's not what I'm saying at all. 

So the bottom line(s) are that Adobe is not going to change Lightroom to provide the OPTION that I desire and the people on this forum should not have to listen to my reasons that their approach won't work for me.  If there are other suggested work arounds, I'll give them a try, but I think we can all save time by understanding that, FOR ME, using the Lightroom database as the only place to store my edits will not work, so there's really no sense discussing those possibilities in this thread.

Sorry if I sounded critical of your approaches.  It was not intended.

-- papaben

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Mentor ,
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Papa Ben wrote:

FOR ME, using the Lightroom database as the only place to store my edits will not work

You need to give a reason why a backed-up database, further backed-up by XMP files or embedded XMP inside the files, finally backed-up by writing final, rendered images to a subfolder for images you feel are the most important, and all that backed up on to other media in another location doesn't provide the needed safety.

Frankly, if all that fails, you've probably been incinerated in a nuclear blast so it doesn't matter anyway.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Lee,  It's hard to resist rising to the bait.  And I should explain that my screen name has changed (apparently due to a glitch in the Adobe forums database....I'm not kidding). 

But seriously, regarding the database issue, let's just say that I have a personal problem in working with databases and I seem to have a reverse Midas touch in that area,  so I personally get very irrationally nervous and upset when I have to deal with them -- much less administer them.  Backing up and restoring databases is simply not something I want to spend my time on.   It is my own personal character flaw.   It is not a reflection on the software or on the way other people choose to do their work. 

Exporting rendered images and making copies of them on other storage systems in other locations is along the lines of the experimentation I am doing.  That's more in line with my current approach, but, with Lightroom, it does involve extra steps, extra folders and extra copies of the files.  In fact, I have a dropbox-like system that makes copies of files on other storage systems in other physical locations when the files are changed.    I just have find a way -- within the constraints of Lightroom -- to minimize the extra steps, the extra copies of extra copies of files and the confusion that can arise some time later about which are rendered and which are not.

But I repeat, not wanting to depend on a database with all the needed backups and restores, etc. is a personal failing of mine.  It is not a reflection on the Lightroom system nor on the way others choose to get their work done.

-- papaben and papaben17 (even the forum user database saw me coming )

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Enthusiast ,
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Papa Ben 1 -> 17,

I think I understand your concerns.  Since LR is designed for best data practices, it is unlikely to change.  Let me tell you how I would handle the situation if it was me. I would be concerned with the following scenarios:

-Failure of the LR database. (Clearly this is of great concern to you, but not too much to others).

-Loss of your images due to your computer being stolen, crashing, or other problem.

-Loss of your images due to natural disaster or similar (fire, flood, tornado, earthquake, etc).

I would assume that the entire LR system would usually operate normally, but I would want a backup.  If I thought there was a high probability of LR failure, I would not use it at all, but use a non-database program.  So I would setup an external drive and an appropriate folder structure that might or might not be the same as the one where I store originals.  Any images that I thought were important (it might be all) I would adjust and export to the external hard drive.  If there were images I thought were bad, I would not bother to delete them, but simply mark them with the "X" flag and set it so those disappeared from view, but were still there if I ever had to go back.  To keep it simple, when I exported a completed image to the external drive, I would mark the original image with a color (I use purple for a final image).  If I might  work on the image in another program or if I thought it was particularly valuable, I would export as a TIFF.  Otherwise I would export as a 100% JPEG.  The reason you export it and not overwrite it is that if you do not trust databases like LR, then you certainly want a final copy that is not subject to LR.  You also keep your original in case you want to do more with it.  It is the best of both worlds.

The external hard drive would be backed up twice.  I use those little portable drives that don't need external power.  One copy stays on site in a media fire safe and the other goes into a safety deposit box.  Now you have protected your original image, saved the final adjusted ones, and protected everything from loss.  Periodically, say once a week or once every few weeks, depending on how often you work on your images, you update the in-house backup copy and then swap it with the copy in your safety deposit box.

You need to prioritize your concerns.  If you feel there is a significant risk in using LR's database, then you have to expect to lose some of its streamlined workflow and do a few simple extra steps.  You can still use your LR setup for your normal work, but know that if LR decided to eat your images, the final adjusted images are safely stored and backed up.  Since LR can work on numbers of images at a time, the extra steps it takes should only take a few minutes.

John

John G. Blair Studio

Occidental, California

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Feb 19, 2012 Feb 19, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, John.

I should clarify that my concern is not for a backup system.  I have one in place that I feel comfortable with.   It has survived disk crashes and stolen computers in good shape. 

My concern is that, when I start making multiple copies of files with the export process, (some edited, some original, some with metadata saved to file, some not), I have a tendency to lose track of which is which.   A friend has suggested a system that I believe will work pretty well when I am bringing new collections in from my camera or scanner.   I just put them into a folder outside my normal photo folder tree.   Then I make a pass with Lightroom, add captions, fix the dates on the scanned images, and touch up or overhaul the images as needed.   After that pass, I export the files to my usual folder tree for photos.  The originals won't be copies all over in my backup system and I can then delete them at my leisure.  (I know, I know.  you professionals cringe at that thought, but I'm not a professional, and the system has served me well over many years.)  I'm getting comfortable with that approach of just bringing new collections in off to the side somewhere and then using the wonderful metadata and image editing features before exporting the processed images into my main photo storage system.  Editing the images and images in Lightroom is really fun.

When I'm going back over my old collections with Lightroom, I'm not so sure what to do.  I have to learn more about your suggestions to mark an image with a color or with an X.  I should know about those facilities, but I don't.   I appreciate your bringing them to my attention.  They sound like features that would help me keep track of various copies of photos when I'm working with my old collections.

And your thought about the database for the tree with all the final adjusted images is just what my friend said.   If I, in my clumsiness, trash the Lightroom database, I can just delete it and have Lightroom rebuild it because all the images in that tree are final, adjusted images.  I don't lose any of my previous editing or metadata.

This is looking hopeful.   Thanks.

-- Ben

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Guest
Dec 17, 2012 Dec 17, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Oh my freakin goodness. This just answered the question for me. I know that the idea behind the system is to reduce destruction as much as possible and for a photographer or professional graphic designer I understand that is essential. But I'm using pics for social sites, web design, and graphic design, in situations that don't ever call for me to be 100ppi better looking than some other developer. I don't really know if that's a term but do some noob translation. I too want to overwrite the original file for the same reasons as all these other blokes. It never heffin occured to me to export, upload or print, and dump! And since LR keeps my catalogue of edits... with history by the way HAAALELUJA, I keep one file on the hd or on two externals and put the export files wherever the hell I want temporarily so they're organized in the big pile AND in the outgoing pile and then off my hd but not lost forever. This makes me happier than my new laser printer. Sweet cheebus you guys on this forum just saved me hours of sorting and re-linking and re-editing.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Sep 19, 2013 Sep 19, 2013

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I use Lightroom pretty much every day.  I used to use Picasa, back when I shot JPGs and was primarily focused on photographing my own family.  Based on my understanding of PapaBen's original question and workflow (which I believe mostly has to do with digitizing old family negatives/prints) it seems to me that LR really is just the wrong tool for the job.  For someone like PapaBen, I would strongly recommend sticking with Picasa for the cataloging and minor adjustments, and then going into something like Photoshop Elements (or PaintShop) to handle anything more advanced. 

Lightroom is just the wrong tool for the job.  Of course, my familiarity with Lightroom would probably incline me to use it anyway, but I wouldn't recommend it for this purpose.  It seems very logical to me that he just wants to create good, digital copies of a bunch of analog family photographs to protect them from being lost/damaged and to preserve them.  In this case, he just wants a good quality, final product. 

This is very different from the needs of a serious photographer/artist, generating RAW files and using Lightroom to develop his art.  Their needs are very different and different tools are appropriate for the different tasks.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 20, 2012 Aug 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have adjusted my thinking, I love Lightroom, but there is still a very good reason to have a save (overwrite) capability:

I work often in a publication layout program. I first assemble all of the images I think I may want in a LR "Collection" named for the job. Then I "develop" all of those images as required. Finally, I export the "Collection" to a specific Job Folder(s). Finally I import the images from those folders into the Publication Layout. Periodically I find images that need tweaking of color and luminance etc. Lightroom does not allow me to "develop" the image and apply that "develop" change directly to the image file that I have already laid out in the publication software. The net result is exporting a new file from LR and Importing it into the publication program job folder each time I want to adjust an image. This is not at all efficient.

If you know a better way let me know.  I have tried In-Design, an Adobe program and it doesn't talk to LR either.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Aug 20, 2012 Aug 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Adobe Lightroom and Adobe InDesign should be able to communicate via Adobe Bridge (didn't try by myself).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 20, 2012 Aug 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Tried it. (Note: "Automatically Write Changes to XMP" is on) I can see the LR image change in Bridge, but the image  did not reflect the change in In-Design when I tried it. Even if I dragged the image from Bridge to In-Design it would revert to "Original".

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Aug 20, 2012 Aug 20, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FLYBOYSOPWITH wrote:

I work often in a publication layout program. I first assemble all of the images I think I may want in a LR "Collection" named for the job. Then I "develop" all of those images as required. Finally, I export the "Collection" to a specific Job Folder(s). Finally I import the images from those folders into the Publication Layout. Periodically I find images that need tweaking of color and luminance etc. Lightroom does not allow me to "develop" the image and apply that "develop" change directly to the image file that I have already laid out in the publication software. The net result is exporting a new file from LR and Importing it into the publication program job folder each time I want to adjust an image. This is not at all efficient.

Besides setting up a standard Collection and manually exporting, you can also set up a Publish collection. The Publish settings create the file type you want, in whatever colourspace and PPI and optional resampling you want, in whatever folder location and naming method you want. When you first click Publish this folder gets populated with auto-exported image files representing all your current LR editing. Within InDesign you Place these images into your page layout, perhaps using the option to have them externally linked rather than embedded inside the InDesign file.

Once you have adjusted the images further in LR, this will have been kept track of automatically by the Publish collection. When  you want to look at these images again in your page layout, you first click Publish in LR (to auto-update the previously saved files as needed so as to show all the new changes). Then you go to InDesign where the picture links are easily updated to reflect their changed external content.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for your help on this.

Do you know how I can synchronize an existing folder of images (already used in an extensive InDesign Project) as a Lightroom Published folder so that it will work the way you described?

Wouldn't it be nice to just have Drag-and-Drop plus "update image" or overwrite between lightroom and the other Adobe software.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I  also noticed that an image in Asdobe bridge will appear like the Lightroom "Developed" Image, but will not drag into InDesign as the "Developed" Image. This is decieving. Explorer shows the true saved image while Bridge, at times will show the "Virtual" Lightroom Image.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FLYBOYSOPWITH wrote:

I  also noticed that an image in Asdobe bridge will appear like the Lightroom "Developed" Image, but will not drag into InDesign as the "Developed" Image. This is decieving. Explorer shows the true saved image while Bridge, at times will show the "Virtual" Lightroom Image.

This is by design. The effect and form of the editing work you are doing in LR, are NOT embodied in the file on disk. The file on disk is just one contributing part of what is being achieved. The rest - the bit that soaks up all the effort - is the metadata instructions and attributes dynamically applied to that file.

Lightroom combines these with the file on disk, to organise / show / print / export an image that has been changed suitably. Bridge does the same (more exactly, ACR does this, since ACR understands all the same instructions, the same way, as LR does).

Explorer, however, is simply oblivious of these added virtual dimensions. So is InDesign - what you have actually supplied it with, if you pass it the base file from which LR is working, is... only part of the story.

LR's workings are indeed virtual in nature. To say they are therefore "unreal" may be accurate I suppose, but not accurate in any useful way - a little like saying "a banknote is a piece of printed paper" - which is perfectly true so far as it goes, without going far enough. The value of a banknote is about more than just its size, weight or ability to be recycled as pulp; the full value of a LR image plus metadata, lies in what the combination can achieve when brought together in the right circumstances.

When we view or use an image that we have worked hard on, but the particular method of viewing or usage makes it seem as if none of this work has happened - that is what we might better consider "deceiving" IMO.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 29, 2012 Aug 29, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Richard,

Again,  thank you for your detailed explanations.

Part of this opinion I have is due to my frustration in securing a positive, time effecient workflow. Instructions from Lightroom are not very informative or clear about interfacing with other Adobe Programs. Frankly, I love lightroom and the virtual environment but, I believe, there ahould be a far more simple path to saving (updating) a hard image on disk.  The publication I am working on has over 600 images spanning over 100 years of  photography. Most of the images are originals from my digital cameras. Some are from color scans of negatives and prints and some are from scans and digital photos of old photographs. An adjustment that may look good in Lightroom for numerous other applications may not look good in a finished, custom, InDesign book and may need some occaisional tweeking. In the end, I need to keep the files for the book as seperate hard files to upload for publication so I selected in LR and exported the images to 5 distinct project folders. Some were adjusted in LR and some were not before the export.

Ideally, (and, stupidly, this is what I expected) I would work my publication layout with virtual files in InDesign and color edit them as needed in a Lightroom collection. Once I am ready to go, I would export the collection to a folder to be sent to the publisher. Shazaam.

I feel like the Publish path will be somewhat closer to to what I would like but in my test I found there still is not a direct link between LR and ID where you can right-click an image and use the "Edit With" command. For all the image files I have been working with since before your Publish suggestion, I at least have to locate the image using the ID Links Panel which will then show the image in Bridge. Then, using the Bridge file location info, I manually locate the image in LR and perform my edit. I then export a copy to the same project folder as the original. I drag and drop the new version of the image onto the old version that I have placed in InDesign. Finally, I go back to Bridge and delete the original file in that folder. This is part of the reason I jump to Bridge from the ID Links Panel as the new version lands next to the old. Note: These are not the true original files, but a copies made just for use in the publication and placed in a project folder.  This process, so far, is the fastest and most reliable that I have come up with. It is still faster that using Photoshop for the image mods, but it is still painfully slower and more convoluted than it should be.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Aug 29, 2012 Aug 29, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Perhaps if you want to get directly back from the ID layout, into re-editing an image further, you are better off using PS to do that directly - taking LR editing out of the loop. An exported / Published file from LR, has no interactivity pointing back to where it comes from. Even the master file on disk, has nothing pointing back to the zero, one or more than one Catalogs that might reference it. There is no trail to follow. 

Lightroom might have an initial role in setting-up these files (for example, conversion from Raw to adjusted bitmap or else to Smart Object with live ACR settings embedded) and might still have them imported so that you can export or print them for other purposes. But you might in this scenario not LR-edit these images further from there; or expect the results of such LR edits to be visible externally. You might instead focus on editing the file content within PS that WILL be immediately visible, once resaved, elsewhere too.

It is all about using the right technology for the job at hand - sometimes we realise the most practical benefit from working "virtual", but other times we get the most benefit from working "physical".

Neither Export nor Publish can be used "bidirectionally"; that is a fundamental of what they do, for good or ill.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FLYBOYSOPWITH wrote:

Do you know how I can synchronize an existing folder of images (already used in an extensive InDesign Project) as a Lightroom Published folder so that it will work the way you described?

I'm not sure what would happen if you simply set up a new Publish to disk service pointing at that folder, but it is worth a try (suitably backed up). The file naming specification would need to be precisely the same, for the updated images to overwrite and then link correctly. If the Publish service refuses to set up for an initially non-empty folder (which I have some vague recolleciton about) then you could temporarily empty that to somewhere else. InDesign will only care about the stored path and filename that it knows about; it won't realise when the files concerned have been switched, AFAIK.

Wouldn't it be nice to just have Drag-and-Drop plus "update image" or overwrite between lightroom and the other Adobe software.

As a less automated alternative to the Publish method, you can get somewhat close to what you mention by setting up a dedicated export preset - which points to that particular folder and is pre-set for the right naming and other image properties. This preset can then be directly called from the LR menu, on demand, for any and all highlighted images, without any need to interact with the Export dialog each time.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Could I persuade you to give me a set up walk thru for the "less automated alternative"? I am missing the boat on some of the set up parameters.

Thanks.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Aug 28, 2012 Aug 28, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FLYBOYSOPWITH wrote:

Could I persuade you to give me a set up walk thru for the "less automated alternative"? I am missing the boat on some of the set up parameters.

I am assuming you are dealing here, with a single folder on disk where your pictures are saved that you want to use in the InDesign publication. Also that this export preset is designed just to help with this particular set of images.

Firstly, when the images were originally saved there, did you use (or systematically alter) the naming, or name / rename them manually? If the latter, there is no easy way to cause LR to automatically overwrite the correct file, unless your master image can be renamed suitably so as to make that happen in some simple method. If the naming can be made to coincide automatically, so much the better.

Secondly, I am assuming that you are not substantially re-cropping the images - but are instead doing so inside the ID layout as needed. If you alter the LR crop and re-export then the linked image will likely change inside ID to reflect that, which may not be what you want.

Thirdly, I am assuming that you originally exported at full resolution and plan to do so again - or else, that you can achieve the same kind of appropriate resizing as before.

So: in LR you would highlight a sample image (ideally, one that is not among the images linked into InDesign) then open the Export dialog from the File menu or Ctrl+Shift+E.

From the top, you might select

  • Export to: Hard drive.
  • Export Location: Specific folder, click Choose to navigate to the right place - uncheck "put in subfolder - uncheck Add to This Catalog - Existing Files: your choice, you can be prompted for overwriting or you can set it to overwrite with no warning.
  • File naming: as above, you need to get the names automatically the same as the existing images, if you want to update them in a way that will be linked the same. If this is impossible, you can instead export under new systematic names which you know LR will be able to repeat exactly whenever the process is repeated - then you would need to re-link your placed images onto these new names as a one-off task, using the Links Manager (or whatever it is called these days) inside ID.
  • File Settings: you need to use the same filetype as previously, in order to retain the links (though if re-linking anyway, you have a chance to reconsider that) and the other image settings need to be equally suitable (or the same).
  • Image Sizing: to suit, as before
  • Output sharpening: whatever you did before
  • Metadata: this doesn't greatly matter to ID so far as I know
  • Watermarking, postprocessing: probably nothing here.

Once you have everything set up, try it out using just this one currently selected trial image, and check that the right thing happens with that. Rinse and repeat with adiustments if not - the last used setup is remembered.

Assuming that is OK, re-open the Export dialog - and on the top left is a list of the current export Presets. Below this is an Add button. Click this to capture your current settings in the entire Export dialog, and enter a descriptive name for the new user preset they are to be saved into.

Close the export dialog. To use the preset, highlight one or more images in either the filmstrip or else in Grid view. Right-click on any of these images, and in the context menu which opens you will see Export with all the presets, including your new user preset, in a flyout subsection. Selecting the preset name carries out the operations you have defined, on each image in your current selection.

regards, RP

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jun 28, 2017 Jun 28, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The thing is, Lightroom CAN allow you do destroy your originals! Simply export the file, and copy it back over the original... Done... I do this all the time - but it is TEDIOUS! So why does Adobe have to be so arrogant/small minded to not include an option to overwrite the original??? I am not a professional, I do not sell my photos, I am happy with any losses to the original, - I just don't want multiple bits of photo and database hanging around! I know that professional Lightroom users would never want to do this - and sure, make the default, so that it doesn't. But it would be trivial for Adobe to include this feature, so that the remaining minority of amateur photographers that would consider lightroom would buy it also! Surely it would increase their sales! I for one would buy the subscription if it did!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Jun 28, 2017 Jun 28, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I felt the same, however I think I am over it somewhat.  I have a folder called "original files", and everything goes in there.  Then another folder called "Photo Library", and I export to there, with just one click.

What that means is, for example, if I have 100 pictures of old gran's 90th birthday, I don't really want to delete them, maybe when she dies we'll want to look at them.  But I don't want to see all 100 when browsing our photo album on TV / Tablet / Mobile....

So that's one good reason for having separate in/out folders.

The other is that I think we sometimes do make edits we want to go back on, eg I wanted a whole set of black and whites, or I wanted that fashionable yellowed instagram look etc, however you get tired of them and want to go back sometimes.

Finally to take full advantage of Lightroom, you really want to film in Raw.  it opens up a huge set of possibilities to make your photos better.  However you tend to share / upload / view your photos using other formats, therefore two sets of files, in and out, just becomes inevitable.  If you're using jlpeg in, you're not getting nearly enough out of LR.

Now, if the second reason is not enough, the first and third ought to be, however, there is a way to do what you want without copying each photo back over.  That's to do a folder export, and set the target to be the same as the input. If you have Raw in and output as jpeg, that won't work of course, however if they're both jpeg, that will work.  You might have to re-import though, as likely LR will take the new file, and apply the LR effects, meaning you "double up" each time you export, however the export / import process is fairly quick.

But, overall, I believe that, even as a happy snapper amateur, keeping the originals is one of the things that actually made me want to use LR, once I'd really thought it over.

Really, the only downside is that you need more disk space, but that is so cheap these days....

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jun 28, 2017 Jun 28, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thomass2  wrote

The thing is, Lightroom CAN allow you do destroy your originals! Simply export the file, and copy it back over the original... Done... I do this all the time - but it is TEDIOUS!

Lightroom in NOT allowing you to destroy your originals, you are doing this yourself outside of Lightroom.  Your originals must be JPG or TIFF files if you are doing this and when you copy the exported file over the top of the original outside of Lightroom than Lightroom will apply all the edits AGAIN to the externally overwritten file so your edits are essentially applied twice. 

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
People's Champ ,
Feb 18, 2012 Feb 18, 2012

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Papa Ben,

You write " but I want the edited version of the image on disk in the original file". The short answer is: Not possible in LR. Period.

The catalog preserves previous edits in the history in Develop Module (left panel). All what you did in the Develop Module is listed in chronological order and you just click on any of the previous states listed in the history panel and you are back to that state. Also you can take snapshots of important steps in the editing process. But the hitory is strictly only for steps you take in the editing process. If - for instance - you`d change the caption of an image several times, there is no way to go back to the first caption - unless you remember it and can do it manually.

WW

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines