Just to check - could the setting for the print cell (within the page setup) be at fault here? There is a checkbox option to set or disable 'Autorotate' for how an image inserts itself into a given cell. You then may see an option for Zoom to Fill instead of Zoom to Fit depending on the template used, but that happens subsequent to the Autorotate option.  ... View more

The editing History of the image begins with the first image state seen after import completes. By default, Before view will show you this as-imported image state (though Before can be set to show you some different image state instead). Anything applied during import (however that is done) was self-evidently not applied after import. Only edit steps carried out after import show as successive (recallable) image states, and the Catalog can do this only because those edits happened 'on its watch'.   All that said, one can see just the current default processing for a given image (the same as if a particular preset had not been chosen to additionally apply during import) by using Reset. The image remembers its edited state and provided this is your next action you can return straight to that using the History panel.   Alternatively you can make a Virtual Copy of the edited image, Reset all processing on the Virtual Copy, then compare and contrast these two versions side by side.  ... View more

I have for years retained my photos in full colour mode, even when receiving a B&W treatment. I just desaturate all the photo's hues (HSL) with a preset. HSL luminance sliders now serve the same purpose as the B&W mode's 'mixer', but I also still have all the other hue related controls to call on. ... View more

Most advice you will see concerning ensuring camera profile is the same (as well as that all the adjustment sliders etc are the same) presumes that this is a Raw conversion profile specific to the camera involved.   AFAIK it is not a thing to use such a profile - a camera calibration one - at partial percentage.   But another kind of choice would be an "effect" profile which modifies RGB starting data towards a certain different look. That profile may often be LUT based. In such a case a variable strength will be logical, say right down to 0% strength - which would mean superimposing no such RGB modification at all - or conversely increasing that even past 100%.   That does presume a valid RGB input for the modification though. And if your starting point is sensor Raw, not converted RGB then some sort of (default profiled?) Raw conversion must have also happened along the way. And perhaps this aspect is what is varying behind the scenes? (because of... reasons).   If so that must give varying results - even when post-applied modifications are themselves identical. ... View more

It is certain that the virtual copy concerned, and the master copy concerned, are both referring to the exact same file? If so, it should be possible to exchange which one has master version status, and which one has VC status (set copy as master). This switch over should make no difference whatever.   Besides checking that the usual Basic Panel adjustments and underlying profile are the same, also that local corrections are not in place, it may also be worth checking for the same Process Version; also checking if anything's active in the less commonly used adjustment panels such as Grading and Tone Curve.   Can you explain what you meant by "42", for the profile you are having trouble with? ... View more

important to note that this is not really "splitting" the current Catalog, unless / until you've also removed the relevant images from that.    Exporting as Catalog has copied those, not moved those, in other words. ... View more

  open the Basic panel, you should see this menu at its top left - in this example photo it is currently processed using a legacy profile but could be changed to one of the Adaptive options instead. Because choice of underlying profile is fundamental, changing between profiles can mean needing to re-consider any and all adjustments done, in the light of the different picture appearance which these will now be resulting in. ... View more

You can make a new Catalog that contains only those selected photos. This new Catalog can live wherever you want. The photos will still be seen in the current Catalog too - unless you remove them from that.    The underlying source files (camera Raw, camera JPG, Photoshop edited files etc) that are referenced by this new Catalog can either be the same ones in the same locations that the current Catalog is referencing - so that both would share in using these - or else you can instruct copies of just the relevant files to be made alongside this new Catalog, and those would be the ones it would then reference. Again, whether you instruct this or not, the starting files and folders would all still remain in place regardless - unless and until you deleted those from disk.    In other words  you can either selectively and partially copy your Catalog to another disk, or else you can do that and at the same time copy all the relevant source files for the photos involved.   This function is called "Export as Catalog".   ... View more

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