Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Can not find virtual copies in Windows folder.

Jul 29, 2012 8:49 AM

I can not remember to have encountered this before, so here I go: I just created a virtual copy of some photos from my summer holiday, and all works well. But when I needed to access these photos going the Windows' way (Windows/My Pictures that is), the virtual copies do not appear in my YYYYMM folder. Going back to LR though, they will appear there with a /Copy 1 extension. RIghtclicking the VC, then "Show in Explorer" will highlight the original in the folder, the VC still not being there. Part of the frustration is that I can not remember this happening before (or maybe it has), so I'm wondering if I by accident have changed any settings.

 

Running LR 4.1 on Windows 7 64-bit.

 

Thanks in advance.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 8:58 AM   in reply to okvaal

    Virtual copies are "virtual". They don't exist in folders; therefore you cannot look in a Windows folder to find them (and in fact, I think its a bad idea for Lightroom users to browse folders in Windows anyway; when you need to browse you browse in Lightroom).

     

    If you remember you could previously do this, you are mis-remembering, there is never a sitatuion where virtual copies appear in Windows.

     

    If for some reason, you need a photo for use outside of Lightroom (any photo, virtual copy or "original"), you would export it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 12:27 PM   in reply to okvaal

    Setting virtual copy as master, and exporting, do not achieve the same result. So, I'm not sure what you mean.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 2:36 PM   in reply to okvaal

    Perhaps we are splitting hairs, or perhaps there is still some misunderstanding.

     

    Setting virtual copy as master does not make your virtual copy available from Windows. Whatever edits you performed on this virtual copy are not visible to Windows. The edits are only visible via certain Adobe programs, and then only if you have the metadata written to the files (or sidecar files). If you want to view/use your edited virtual copy in Windows, or in any non-Adobe program, you must export it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 29, 2012 3:43 PM   in reply to okvaal

    It matters to anyone reading this thread, wondering how to make virtual copies appear in Windows.

     

    Opening a virtual copy in PSE creates an "actual" photo that appears in Windows. It is identical in appearance to your "virtual copy" in LR until you edit it in PSE and save it, in which case again it is different than your "virtual copy" in LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 8:23 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    dj_paige wrote:

     

    It matters to anyone reading this thread, wondering how to make virtual copies appear in Windows.

    Or Mac <g>. Agreed. What I do is export my VC’s as DNG’s and within the Export, use the option to Import into Catalog (Add to this Catalog check box). Now I have a real document, still raw, saved onto a disk.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:11 AM   in reply to okvaal

    Not a stupid question ... in fact, by saving it as DNG, Mr. Rodney now has a photo whose Windows (or Mac) thumbnail will not reflect his edits, and a photo that must be exported (again!) to use in any non-Adobe application. So what has Mr. Rodney gained? (He has lost disk space and time).

     

    Why add this DNG to your catalog, when it was already in there as a virtual copy?

     

    Seems to me he has eliminated all of the benefits of virtual copies in Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:18 AM   in reply to okvaal

    okvaal wrote:

     

    "(Add to this Catalog check box)", off course. Somehow I didn't see that. This is perhaps a stupid question, but why as DNGs?

    Because I want raw data, not a rendered (TIFF, JPEG, PSD) to continue working with it using all the benefits of raw.

    Why add this DNG to your catalog, when it was already in there as a virtual copy?

    Because the VC doesn’t exist outside the proprietary catalog. If the catalog goes bad, even with backups, I prefer to have an actual raw file with the embedded rendered JPEG, all metadata settings, DNG profile etc. I don’t do this will all or even most VC’s but do with hero images that I want to be physically saved to disk as a document.


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:26 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    You need to understand that a virtual copy is nothing more than a set of instructions that links back to the original image.  It is not an additional image or copy of the pixels.  The instructions are stored in the catalog and are available only within Lightroom.  Outside of Lightroom, a virtual copy is "virtually" nonexistent.  Pardon the pun.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:24 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    in fact, by saving it as DNG, Mr. Rodney now has a photo whose Windows (or Mac) thumbnail will not reflect his edits, and a photo that must be exported (again!) to use in any non-Adobe application. So what has Mr. Rodney gained? (He has lost disk space and time).

    The thumbnail (on Mac) reflects the edit, not that I care. What I’ve gained is a real iteration of the original in raw, with all the DNG benefits. I could have a completely different DNG profile embedded along with a fully rendered reflection of those edits I can use if necessary. I don’t have to worry that should something happen to the catalog, I’ve lost anything, I have a DNG albeit as you point out, more space used on my drive (drive space is cheap, my images aren’t) The time spent is insignificant and small once one builds a save as DNG and import into catalog export template. Since all my images are saved to a cloud (CrashPlan), my DNG is now saved off site.

     

    There ARE significant advantages of VC’s no question. Mostly for experimenting with rendering options without the overhead of saving to disk. Other than that, once I have a VC hero, it is going to be saved as a DNG. Now if the Master needs to go because I prefer this VC/DNG, I CAN delete the master and make this actual data file the master.

     

    Here’s a hypothetical question dj-paige. If disk storage is so precious to you, do you make a VC of all your masters then delete the masters? You could. I wouldn’t, I don’t like the idea of potentially hours of work on an image being something that isn’t saved out and backed up in multiple locations. Something that gets done automatically for me while I’m sleeping (and sleeping well because I know I’ve got a solid backup workflow).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:31 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    Here’s a hypothetical question dj-paige. If disk storage is so precious to you, do you make a VC of all your masters then delete the masters? You could. I wouldn’t, I don’t like the idea of potentially hours of work on an image being something that isn’t saved out and backed up in multiple locations. Something that gets done automatically for me while I’m sleeping (and sleeping well because I know I’ve got a solid backup workflow).

    That is a completely irrelevant question.  If you delete the original then the virtual copy has nothing to link to, and will be deleted as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:38 AM   in reply to JimHess

    JimHess wrote:

     

    Here’s a hypothetical question dj-paige. If disk storage is so precious to you, do you make a VC of all your masters then delete the masters? You could. I wouldn’t, I don’t like the idea of potentially hours of work on an image being something that isn’t saved out and backed up in multiple locations. Something that gets done automatically for me while I’m sleeping (and sleeping well because I know I’ve got a solid backup workflow).

    If you delete the original then the virtual copy has nothing to link to, and will be deleted as well.

    Exactly! You’ve stated the ‘issue’ perfectly and the reason I save out an actual data file from a VC when I’m sure it don’t want it to be virutal: a virtual copy is nothing more than a set of instructions that links back to the original image.  It is not an additional image or copy of the pixels.  The instructions are stored in the catalog and are available only within Lightroom.  Outside of Lightroom, a virtual copy is "virtually" nonexistent.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:43 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    There ARE significant advantages of VC’s no question. Mostly for experimenting with rendering options without the overhead of saving to disk. Other than that, once I have a VC hero, it is going to be saved as a DNG. Now if the Master needs to go because I prefer this VC/DNG, I CAN delete the master and make this actual data file the master.

    Oh come on, there are other reasons people create Virtual Copies other than "experimenting"

    Here’s a hypothetical question dj-paige. If disk storage is so precious to you, do you make a VC of all your masters then delete the masters?

    You're kidding, right?

     

    Seems like you are intent on using Virtual Copies in your own way, which is fine for you. I wouldn't ever recommend doing what you are doing, because as I said, you seem to be intent on eliminating the advantages of Virtual Copies. Even if you don't care about disk space, you are doing more work, spending more time, than I am because of the way you choose to handle virtual copies.

    I don’t have to worry that should something happen to the catalog

    As I have said (and others have said), the way to prevent losing your work should something happen to the catalog is to make regular backups of the catalog file. My virtual copies are safe, I have on-site and cloud backups of the catalog file, and I'm quite sure that I will never lose my virtual copies, even though I don't have an actual file for each virtual copy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 9:59 AM   in reply to dj_paige

    dj_paige wrote:

    Oh come on, there are other reasons people create Virtual Copies other than "experimenting"

    Such as (other than saving space)? The idea of building differing rendering options (experimenting) is a tremendous advatnage of parametric editing. I’m only suggesting for the OP and others that saving out an actual data file to use in, oh maybe a Smart Object in Photoshop and utilizing ACR is doable and useful.

     

    Yes I was kidding because you seem to make a big deal about the disk space an actual document takes up. The time is insignificant, especially in LR since you can move onto other tasks AS you export.

     

    How do you work with VC’s in a collaborate workflow? You send someone your catalog? All I have to do is supply the DNG itself, generated from the VC.

     

    Please REREAD the OP’s question. I provided a solution. You don’t want to save VC’s out as a DNG, AOK with me. I’m not about to rely only on a virtual description of an image I’ve worked on and want to be real outside LR, hence a small number of VC’s end up being non VC’s, real raw files that I can access outside LR.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 10:04 AM   in reply to okvaal

    If you want to save virtual copies as DNG files, I see nothing wrong with that.  There are many different ways of handling things, and whatever workflow does the job for you, that is the one you should use.  In fact, this idea of saving DNG files finally demonstrates to me that there really is a good use for DNG files.  But there really aren't that many virtual copies that I would feel compelled to convert.  I do most of my image viewing from within Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 12:09 PM   in reply to JimHess

    JimHess wrote:

     

    If you want to save virtual copies as DNG files, I see nothing wrong with that.  There are many different ways of handling things, and whatever workflow does the job for you, that is the one you should use.  In fact, this idea of saving DNG files finally demonstrates to me that there really is a good use for DNG files.  But there really aren't that many virtual copies that I would feel compelled to convert.  I do most of my image viewing from within Lightroom.

    It seems to me a logical tactic, to save out a DNG specially as required - to include an updated embedded preview, up-to-date metadata, and a copy of the underlying Raw data - in order to hand this off as a working package to someone else.

     

    But: doing so serves substantially the same purpose with a LR "master" image, as it does with a LR "VC" image. And not doing so does not seem to prevent us from doing anything we want while working locally and with access to the Catalog; regardless whether we are talking about a "master", or a "VC". We may not even care much, which is which. Or we may flip images from one status to the other, with free and flippant abandon.

     

    As I see it, the item we are truly editing in LR, is not a file, but a Catalog entry. This involves added virtual properties and context-based significance that the file does not have, and those things are available to a VC just as much as to a "master".

     

    The LR image may behave in some respects like a real document (unless it happens to be a VC) - but it also behaves in some respects unlike a real document (even if it happens to be a "master").

     

    RP

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 12:25 PM   in reply to richardplondon

    Richard,

     

    What is your point?  How one person uses virtual copies is up to them.  And if they want to save DNG copies, what is wrong with that?  It isn't part of my workflow, and probably won't be.  But I don't work the way the OP does, and I don't have the need that he does.  All I was saying is if he wants to save DNG copies then go ahead.  It's his workflow.  It doesn't matter whether or not we agree with it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 2:16 PM   in reply to JimHess

    JimHess wrote:

     

    Richard,

     

    What is your point?  How one person uses virtual copies is up to them. 

    Completely. And I wasn't criticising your post. My only point, was an observation that there is very little actual practical difference between a virtual copy and a "master" ANYWAY. The only distinguishing factor - being able or unable to write (some of) the metadata out to file - is a very minor detail (at least, it is for those people whose wider workflow does not hinge around that specific aspect).

     

    If a means were found to write out VCs as well as master copies, perhaps by making some kind of scripted use of the already present "snapshot" feature - there would then (maybe) be no difference at all.

     

    regards, RP

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,392 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 2:55 PM   in reply to richardplondon

    richardplondon wrote:

    My only point, was an observation that there is very little actual practical difference between a virtual copy and a "master" ANYWAY.

    So you have 1 master (an actual raw) and 10 VC’s. What happens to the VC’s if the master gets corrupted?

     

    If your master has say Adobe Standard as the DNG Profile but the VC has a custom DNG profile, what happens to the VC if that profie goes missing or gets corrupted? Try it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 30, 2012 5:16 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    Andrew Rodney wrote:

     

    richardplondon wrote:

    My only point, was an observation that there is very little actual practical difference between a virtual copy and a "master" ANYWAY.

    So you have 1 master (an actual raw) and 10 VC’s. What happens to the VC’s if the master gets corrupted?

     

    If your master has say Adobe Standard as the DNG Profile but the VC has a custom DNG profile, what happens to the VC if that profie goes missing or gets corrupted? Try it.

    If by "master", you mean the Raw file on disk, then if that is corrupted (something I have never yet experienced IIRC; although I still backup against this possibility) then certainly, all images derived from that will suffer. However adding VCs does not increase the absolute risk of that. The way I was using "master", was to refer to the one LR metadata set which, unlike a VC metadata set, currently asserts a functional link to the source file. If that LR metadata set were to get corrupted, (something I have never yet experienced either IIRC, although I still backup against that possibility too) then I might be glad of a VC which I could immediately promote to that role and status instead.

     

    Certainly bad things may happen to a VC if a required external file is lost or changed - but these are exactly the same bad things, as if the exact same events had happened for the "master" version alongside. I do take the point that there is protection in redundancy - no question - and also that instantly written-out metadata is a useful separate backup of one's work (as I mentioned, I'd be glad if VCs could get the same thing too somehow, someday).

     

    One-to-many dependency on a single source file can make some good things happen too,though, which may be judged worth any potential added risks. Say deliberate changes are newly made to a Photoshop edit on which several LR image versions are based. These updates will ripple through all virtual versions automatically; whereas if these versions had instead been fully independent, the same changes would need to be made repeatedly to get the same result; assuming one wants all these versions to reflect the changes; which is (should be; needs to be) the realistic expectation, when one has opted to use a cluster of VCs in the first place.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points