When you "Export as Catalog" you choose a location and name for this new Catalog. Whether relevant files are to be copied here too, or not, is controlled by a checkmark option "Export negative files".   IF checked, a set of subfolders is created alongside the new Catalog, corresponding to the relative arrangement of subfolders seen in the current catalog - and populated with copies of the image files concerned. The new Catalog references these copy files and copy folders. The current Catalog continues to reference all the originals as before.    So the files have been duplicated - with the copies separated out systematically, but the originals still intermixed. Thus, cleaning these images out from the current Catalog - using the same highlighted set that you used for the Export - can include a deletion from disk as well as a removal from the Catalog, and then there is no more duplication.   OR if not checked, the new catalog references (the same) files in the same current folders where the current catalog continues to see them - in other words, both the catalogs share these same files and folders. So in this case one's deletion of the relevant images from the current catalog needs to use the Remove from Catalog option only. For, I hope, obvious reasons.    [FYI: when exporting (say) contents of a single Collection, all of which have been highlighted, the first checkbox may not appear. But when it does, if this is left unchecked, all of the images in the catalog will get included regardless of highlighting or not. So these options are important to verify.]   Also - whenever considering removing images from any Catalog, I would advise ensuring an up to date Catalog backup first. The Export as Catalog process is itself non-destructive so far as the current Catalog and the current locations of all the image files - whether copying files or not - but the cleanup of the current Catalog afterwards does need to involve a lot more care. ... View more

Sometimes the adjustment / tool you have active is itself  using the arrow keys.   Crop is one example. Whenever the crop boundary has got room to move, you can scroll the image in various directions "underneath" this boundary.   The Ctrl key informs LrC when you want to switch to another image, and not move the current image's crop. ... View more

A Lightroom truly 'Pro' offering would IMO allow multi-user use at extra cost - not trim anything off (which costs no more to include, but may cost more overall to leave out). Multi user is nontrivial (understatement) to implement when it comes to a local Catalog. That is AFAIK built off a database engine (SQLite) which is not capable of concurrent changes.   So I would agree: the opportunity for offering different product levels and pricepoints may be there for Lightroom (cloud centric), but not for Lightroom Classic (local centric).  ... View more

Maybe try avoiding this character (#) and see if that makes a difference? It does sit within that grey area between universally OK, and problematic. I would not say the same thing about the accented characters themselves: these are normal and well tested AFAIK.   [Uninformed speculation]: if that (#) character had raised some error while interpreting these image paths, perhaps LrC could be reverting to just a basic character set for safety - and that tighter interpretation might reject any expanded Unicode characters found. ... View more

There is a moderation process needed I believe, before an issue will appear formally as a Bug - including checks on reproducibility, and on whether enough technical info has been given. So you may get some follow-up questions first. ... View more

I guess Adobe is not itself responsible for mapping information, so we must rely on other suppliers for that.   I feel this gets less contentious by remembering that "America" is the name of a continent - within which Mexico, the USA as well as other countries exist - and not itself a nation (grin). ... View more

What I am seeing is: whenever crop shape retains the same aspect as the original starting image this is reported as "Original" - for example if the camera captured 16:9, then I narrow down on part of the image keeping the shape the same, aspect does not say 16:9 it says Original. If I now choose (say) 3:2 it adjusts the crop shape but still generally narrowed down on the same part of the image. So if I now click Original for aspect it goes back to the entire captured image. But if I click on 16:9 it reverts to how it was just before I clicked on 3:2.   IOW reporting "(same shape as) Original" and asking for "(return to) Original" seem to have different meanings.  ... View more

There is no option provided in the import dialog to use a text file to select images. I think the error text file is purely informational. This might be your only record of having individually checked and unchecked a lot of images to include / omit for import, in which case the only way it could be practically useful AFAIK might be to programmatically find those images and separate them to a dedicated storage location - by writing a script or some such to carry this out (externally to LrC). Then import whatever's in that new location. Or you can refer to the text file to carry out the same separation manually.    I don't fully understand what may have caused the import error - but if some images were successfully imported at an undesired location, while other images failed to come in, the successful imports could need attention also. These would not have been reported as errors.   If the entire import failed then you can simply repeat it with the desired settings.   Perhaps if you can be specific setting out what you wanted to happen - and what did happen - you can get some more specific advice back. ... View more

Reorganising physical storage from inside the Catalog is all well and good but much more laborious behind the scenes AFAIK. Fine for one or two randomly selected items, since then there is no readdressing to be done for each. But for changing the location of a larger systematic chunk of data, especially when this is manageable via a containing folder: the pragmatic position IMO says: do this outside LR as a copy, readdress in Catalog, tidy up later. Copy is inherently simpler and safer than Move as well as quicker in practice. Delete the unwanted stuff  only after the copy is verified complete and data OK. ... View more

One little wrinkle here: switching to "print" to JPG pauses your ability to access the print driver itself, for freely changing page setup.   As an example: say you want a "borderless" layout output to JPG - but the remembered page layout from when you were set to output to device, involves hardware print limits. You would in that case need to switch temporarily back to outputting to device, select a 'borderless' page option in its print driver, and then switch back to outputting to JPG. But now with expandable margins, so images can go right to the edge. ... View more

Thanks for update - I do agree camera embedded corrections should be possible to negate (and then substitute) but perhaps Adobe does not have a completely free hand contractually? ... View more

Two settings apply for user-customised lens profile detection:   On a sample image, you need to select that different lens profile and then save this as 'New (user) Default Profile'   But also: when lens profile selection shows "Auto", images will ignore that. They need to show 'Default' instead.   All that said, some images report no - or at least, non-unique - lens information thus neither Auto nor Default can ever give appropriately varying result per lens. As an example: many older manual lenses report just their 'general class of lens' to Lightroom. My Pentax camera prompts me to manually enter a focal length when mounting a non-recognised lens (for purposes of in-body shake reduction) and this focal length info makes it into the image metadata. So that taken together with the 'general class of lens' info, helps me batch-apply a Develop preset which imposes the appropriate profile as a Manual selection.   The same issue arises when different lens models electronically report the identical lens ID code to the camera. When both are by the same maker this will never happen AFAIK, but it can do otherwise.  ... View more

Your screenshot shows a 'dot' below the Masking button which tells me that you have at least one Mask present on this image. This 'dot' is highlighted in red which shows that some auto-detected Masking needs update.   A Mask is applied which uses (say) a 'Background' auto-selection. This selection is made by looking at the picture content. Then the resulting 'background' area receives your adjustment - let's say, darkening.   Now you do some cloning which modifies what the picture content looks like. The mask you currently have is based on an analysis of the image as it looked before the cloning happened, so there is a potential mismatch between the remembered mask, and the image content as it now looks. This usually looks like a sort of shadowing or patchiness.   There is nothing wrong with the cloning itself: you just need to tell LrC to re-do its AI detection of Background, or Sky, or Subject - in respect of this different looking picture content.    IOW we must choose a working sequence: either [clone] > [mask], or else [mask] > [clone] > [update mask as needed]  ... View more

a similar request has gathered a fair few! ... View more

"I would actually prefer Adobe deleted this functionality altogether" - pausing Sync, and leaving it paused, seems to be equivalent: if you do not want any local interchanges with cloud going on, you can prevent those and just ignore any Sync status warnings. Remove the Sync arrow against any Collections. One consequence is finding some other way to get new images captured by cloud connected devices (such as cellphones) to become local files, so that they can be imported. If one's new images are all arriving from local card reader (or tethering) anyway that won't be a consideration. ... View more

A 'Smart Collection' isn't considered a valid source. One way to think about this is that a Collection is a "thing" - a noun (a defined set of photos), while a Smart Collection is more like a verb: (apply some selection rules and keep doing that from moment to moment).    If you want a Smart Collection which adds a further selection rule to modify those results: Duplicate the first Smart Collection and then add this extra rule to that.    Noting, if your first Smart Collection has "Any of the rules" logic [where each new rule widens the set], and your extra condition needs "All of the rules" logic [where each new rule narrows the set] - you may need to redesign those first rules accordingly within this duplicate.   For example: if current SC's rules are Any of [keywords include "france"] OR [keywords include "italy"] and what you now want is to add the requirement to be 3 stars or over, you might need to set the rules of this new SC as All of [keywords must include "france italy"] AND [stars must be 3 or more] .   The space between those keywords is in effect 'smuggling' some OR behaviour inside the AND requirement. ... View more

Perhaps use a Color Range selection in a mask and then apply a colour temperature adjustment - add a brushed selection to this mask set to Subtract, and paint out any areas you notice which accidentally include in this Color Range selection, but where you do not want the adjustment.   I like Color Balance as a generally mild and 'believable' tweak, because it applies so progressively and subtly onto varying colours without tending to obscure relative hue distinctions within those.    [Adobe even when localising for the UK where I am from, still uses the US "Color" spelling for its interface, so I do reflect that when discussing the software features - capitalised - but I still maintain the right to spell this word 'colour' otherwise!] ... View more

Very strange - perhaps a corruption in the Catalog. There's a Preferences option to write out "keywords as Lightroom hierarchy" which may allow inspection of a special metadata field in the export - this is distinct from the standard keywords which e.g. the OS file browser will display. The "as Lightroom hierarchy" info contains nesting info which might differ from what is seen in the Keywords List panel, if Catalog is corrupted.   Nuclear option test is to Export as Catalog - un-tick "selected images only" to get all images, and un-tick "include originals" so as not to create duplicates of all the source files. This is non-destructive so far as your current Catalog and images. Then you can open this exported Catalog - it will contain everything seen in the current Catalog (edit History, Collections, all that) just not Publish setups and some other matters IIRC. But as it is created, in my experience anything structurally corrupted tends to get re-made as good, or else if unusable gets omitted. So the result should be all known-good info.   Oh, for completeness, there is sometimes 'trimming' when a Catalog has got a very long list of keywords to display. It is possible this may lead to some keywords not appearing. Collapsing down the nesting (such that a less long overall list needs to be displayed at a time) may work around this glitch temporarily. ... View more

Just to point out, deleting an unwanted keyword also deletes any child keywords it has (you should see a warning message first).   So if you still want those other keywords (as they are assigned variously to lots of images), you should not simply delete that unwanted parent. You should re-organise these wanted keywords (centrally, in the List) so they are no longer nested inside that unwanted one.   Then this unwanted 'China' keyword will stop showing up indirectly as a parent keyword, on any images. However, any images which had got 'China' directly assigned in its own right - intentionally - will continue to show this as one of their standard keywords. ... View more

The place to sort this out is in the Keyword List panel, not in the Keywording panel   The Keyword List panel shows you any keyword nesting that exists. Keywords that are dragged out of a particular nesting will stop showing that as a parent keyword. You can highlight a number of keywords to do this, e.g. clicking the first in a sequence and shift-clicking the last. Then drag to another place in the list - that is not within "China". Dragging partway down the list will nest them inside another keyword instead. But right at the top of the list there is a narrow gap you can drag them to, which removes them from all nesting. It may take one or two goes to locate this, it's quite a precise target.    That said, personally I think keyword nesting is a great feature when done intentionally, so you may want to implement some sort of scheme anyway and drag your keywords into more suitable parent ones.   A parent keyword is simply any normal keyword. which one or more others have been either created or else later dragged inside. ... View more

Possibly if you switch the import settings over to Copy import, the presented options to do with import presets may change?   When importing with a card reader as the source, Copy is the default method unless you say different, except that the Add option is (generally, not always) unavailable in that case. When a standard drive is the source all methods are available but Add becomes IIRC the default instead. Unclear to me why or how that difference of behaviour should affect the management of import presets but seems it somehow does [mystified shrug]. ... View more

The Delete option presented in the same place where you would select which preset to use, is a widespread method used across many LrC features. That works one at a time.   Another method lets you go to where these presets are stored on disk: where you can delete those, copy them to/from another computer, back them up and so forth. Go to Lightroom Preferences in the menu; Presets tab; Location section. There is one button to show your saved Develop presets (these are shared with Adobe Camera Raw) and another to Show All Other (these are not). The second button opens a file browser window with a "Lightroom" folder selected. Inside that are the subfolders for various kinds of presets including your import presets, export presets ... etc    If you delete or add something here, no change will be seen within the Catalog until you've closed and reopened that. I believe (the organisation of all this has changed around quite a bit over time) if you've created a preset yourself, the proper place for that may be the respective User Presets subfolder, not the Lightroom Presets subfolder alongside. It certainly used to be the case that only a User Presets location would get re-scanned for any changes whenever LrC started up. ... View more

Thanks for taking the trouble John. Difficult to form a simple idea of what's going on but I think that even if images might report an abbreviated path that looks relative, and even if they might in effect 'travel' successfully with the Catalog, somewhere there must be absolute path info remembered. Reason I say this is:   Make folders parent..path \ A and parent..path \ B alongside each other, and create a new catalog in A. Put image-containing folder X within A and import those images with Add. Move this catalog bodily into folder B instead, and open that. The images are still found. They must therefore have 'remembered' in some way the absolute location of folder "parent..path \ A \ X", because if they only knew about having a local subfolder "X", that would now have failed.   I wonder if this apparent 'relative path' behaviour function may be just automatic substitution - re-pathing when necessary, and perhaps suppressing the display of upper parts of actual path whenever that repeats the location of the active Catalog. The latter presentation would in effect preview what 'as if relative' path updating behaviour would ensue, if something changed in future about the locations of both Catalog and images together. So the outcome would be a different absolute path, but one which nonetheless would look the same as it does now once 'trimmed' in this manner. But without suffering the downside I describe above (orphaning imported images which have not themselves moved).   Another way of saying this: your sunglasses possess an absolute position in the world at each moment. Sometimes - when they are on top of your head, say - their absolute position in the world is continually updating to follow your own position changing. When travelling in a car (say) the "On top of your head" description is more convenient than "currently at these GPS coordinates" even though both may be correct. But were they to get knocked out of the car window, the "on top of your head" style description now becomes invalid - but the sunglasses' GPS coordinates having now ceased tracking that of the moving car, still remain accurate for their continuing location. ... View more

AFAIK Catalogs don't literally implement relative pathing vs absolute pathing: using absolute paths always, so with no separate "feature" to document. One could test this by moving a Catalog away from the physically associated photos that it references (the photos staying put). If their pathing within the Catalog had really been relative before, affected photos would then become "not found". I don't think that is what happens - the paths for wherever they absolutely were before, and where they continue to be, would still work fine. I expect! (careful disclaimer)   Assuming so we can think of this association of files with Catalog as a special-case situation: and what makes it special is that LrC has a fallback "what-if" tactic. Whenever LrC cannot locate its sunglasses where it thought they last were left, it prompts itself: did I also check the top of my own head? (grin) ... View more

Individual presets themselves define any different grouping they should appear within, as seen in the Presets panel. Groupings seen there, do not necessarily correspond to any actual subfolders.    A given preset  can be assigned to one of the already seen groupings, or else to a newly created grouping, by right-clicking on that in the panel and choosing Move. This takes immediate effect: LrC physically edits the external XMP file accordingly, re-scans that and then reflects the change straight away.   Another method is to - from outside of the Catalog - use some separate text editing utility to selectively change the relevant statement inside the chosen XMP files. The Catalog will not I believe re-scan for and then reflect any updated groupings until its next startup.   so as screenshot above, the only reason two of my presets group themselves under the heading "lens related" (green highlighted) is because those two presets contain within their XMP file this particular text (orange highlighted) within the section named "Group". These two presets still live physically alongside the others - there is no actual subfolder called "lens related". This is an example of virtual organisation only.  ... View more

Yes people might as well know about this feature - still I suspect that many, even knowing about it, would not have that as an aim. The location of a Catalog and the location of image files (whether in one volume or spread across many) involve differing practical requirements and I can see many ways how it could be restrictive to in effect require metadata (the Catalog's info about where the source images are) and the data (the images referred to) to both live in one storage location together.   Unless one was constantly moving things around - but that raises the question: why not, instead, find a way not to need to? ... View more

unsafe link was for something called "space urchin" - my curiosity got better of me, but I think my anti-malware blocked all the potentially bad stuff that resulted ... View more

See this explanation: https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/fujifilm-x-series-iso-bracketing    If the article linked is correct, only one photo is exposed when this feature is active. It's not 'exposure bracketing' at all, strictly speaking. It is 'appearance bracketing' where additional slightly lighter and darker processing treatments of this image are presented. If shooting JPG, each would have different picture content because the camera has saved different  processing outcomes into these three files.   If shooting Raw, that will not be the case: the Raw content of each file being identical. This is despite the JPG previews embedded by the camera, and then initially shown in the Catalog, representing three different 'notional' brightnesses.   In my opinion there is no advantage from this feature if shooting Raw, You would get substantially the same results by moving the Exposure slider after import into the Catalog: even, make virtual copies which can show this brighness variation side by side. But you will have avoided the duplication involved in making three copies of effectively the same identical Raw file. ... View more