Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

How do I save Lightroom image edits in source file?

Feb 18, 2012 11:17 AM

Tags: #file #save #source

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.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 12:00 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    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 image management (including location of your image files), captions, keywords, etc.

     

    For this reason it is all-important that you preserve and protect your LR catalog just as you have to preserve and protect your image files. That means you (a) should know the location of the catalog and (b) you should do back-ups regularly. Without the catalog you would still have your image files but your edits and all what you did in LR would be lost.

     

    LR does not write into the original image file. But there is the possibility to save edits in a xmp-file which is a small file that (normally) sits besides the image file. You do this saving to xmp-file either in the Library Module by going >Metadata > Save Metadata to file (or shortcut Ctrl./Cmd. + letter "S"), or in the Develop Module by going  >Photo >Save Metadata to file - or again Ctr. + S.

    With DNGs it's a bit different; with DNGs Lr writes the edits into the header of the file. But the procedure is the same.

     

    Saving to XMP (or into the header of a DNG) is not necessary because LR saves everything in its catalog - automatically. Saving to XMP (or into the DNG-header) has the effect that the edits you do in LR are now visible in any other Adobe program that can read XMP-files (or DNG files) - for instance Adobe Bridge. But for LR it is not necessary.

    And there is one caveat: While LR saves everything in the catalog, not all the things you do in LR are written into XMP é DNG. So only the LR catalog saves everything you did in LR.

     

    To answer your question: You do not have to save the edited version of a photo back into the original file. LR saves your edits in the catalog automatically and will display your edits because it reads the original image file and then applies the edits to it for display.

    WW

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 12:11 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    You did not specify what file type you are working with. From what I know, or think I know, You can only save this data imbedded in the file only if the file-type is .DNG. If you are editing a .jpg or raw file, you will get a sidecar xmp file with the develope edits. I don't know if there is any such software that can do what you are hoping to do. Perhaps propriatary software from Canon, Nikon, etc. can embed into their own raw file, but such software generally has such limited functionality. This is the main reason Adobe created the "open source" .DNG file type in the first place. "open source" in this case is a misnomer as Adobe has a pattent on the file type. .DNG really needs to be unlocked from the clenches of Adobe for it to insure success, if it even can.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 12:54 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    Again, my take would be to keep the original file untouched and save a duplicate images in the same folder (Image01_v2.jpg) I believe once you make all the edits you would export the image to the same direstory as the original. At this point you would have two images, Image01.jpg and Image01_v2.jpg. You need to keep in mind that LR is a non-destructive editing process. This keeps the original image unedited,but can apply these changes when desired, preferable to a separate file.

    With standard editing software you may make all the adjustments to the original and save the same file. But down the line, if your monitor was giving you a poor representation of the image, the edited file will need to be tweaked again....reducing its quality with each new edit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 12:48 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    You wrote: "...  store my edited image in the same file where the original unedited image was to begin with."

    Why is that so important for you - I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I just don't see the importance of it.

     

    Also: If the image files are JPGs it is not a good idea to save / store edits in the original image file.

    JPG uses a "lossy" compression; that means that by compressing the image file to a smaller size on disk, JPG throws away image information that is lost forever.

    By subsequest savings more image data is being thrown away to the effect that image quality degrades with each saving of the original file.

    You save your JPG the first time when you bring it from camera (or card reader) to your hard drive. Then you edit it and save again. Then you don't like the first edits. edit it again and save again.

    This is not a good procedure for JPGs. If your camera creates JPGs you'd be much better off with LR that saves edits in the catalog and does not touch your JPG so that it is saved only once - when you bring it into the computer.

    WW

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 1:10 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    Papa Ben wrote:

     

    But, unwise as it may be in your mind, it is important for me to be able to operate in the fashion I describe.

     

    LR will likely never allow you to overwrite your originals.  That's contrary to the entire non-destructive philosophy of the way LR works.  This is a good thing.  Anyone wanting to cut up or paint on their film negatives would be well advised to reconsider their entire operational strategy.  I suggest the same for you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 1:10 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 1:18 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Papa Ben,

     

    I respect what you are saying. But let me tell you that Lightroom forced all (or most)  of us to rethink our workflow and change it. We had workflows that were based on programs that are different from LR (mine was based on Adobe Bridge) and we had to adjust to working the way LR wants us to work. Why? Because LR is a formidable and fine program that is appreciated by many professionals  who do not want to miss out on the feature that LR offers. So we changed our workflow. And looking back - it was for the better.

    I have read posts by some beginners in LR who say I don't like this or that, and if that's not possible, I'm not using LR. That is absolutely fine. If you think LR is not for you. Fine.

     

    But you miss out on a very capable and professional program.

    WW

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 2:02 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    I'm not trying to sell you LR. But the answer is actually No, and Yes.

     

    No, you can not overwrite(save) the original file with the edits you made in LR.

    Yes, you can include the edits to a duplicate file, and if you choose, delete the original. This (Export) process in LR would be the equivalent of saving and replacing the original file as a new edited file in most other software...PSP, ACDSee, Picassa.....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 2:48 PM   in reply to asd23e

    It seems to me that the last thing you would want to do would be to save all your changes to your original master file. Suppose in the future that you decide you want to take a different approach, create a black-and-white, or a split tone image, or maybe you decide you want to take a completely different approach. If you have saved all of your edits to your master file then you don't have that master file to go back to as an original. I don't know if you have considered using virtual copies, but that is a good approach. And when you have adjustments made to the master file that you like you can export a copy of that image that contains all of those changes, but you still have the master file in its original state (or at least that can be restored to its original state). Someone suggested reevaluating your workflow. If you are unwilling to do that, then perhaps Lightroom is not the best choice for you. As we try to help you understand the benefits of NOT saving to your master file, you are relating that to your current workflow and it doesn't make sense. In that same vein, what you want to do doesn't make sense to most of us. Fortunately, there is not really any one "right" way to do things. But I certainly would not want to try to make Lightroom do what you are asking for.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 7:05 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    Papa Ben wrote:

     

    Many thanks for the suggestions.   I'll experiment with alternative ways of getting around this intentional limitation in the software.  I think I've got a couple more weeks on my trial period. 

    -- papaben

     

    The best way, in my view, is to not save finished images at all.  If you need to export them to a final destination like a printer, a file for printing at a service, a file for putting up on the web, or whatever, export it to that destination and then get rid of it.  In some cases, you don't even need the intermediate file, such as when printing locally.

     

    There are special cases where it's necessary to keep a finished, rendered file, but it doesn't sound to me like you're at that point, nor anywhere close to it.  If you are, just put it in a subfolder of the orignal like "prints" or "finished", or whatever.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 8:41 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    Papa Ben wrote:

     

    But I've had too much experience with databases to trust them with all that hard work.  That's not even a remote possibility.

     

    Which is why you can set your catalog preferences to verify and optimize and backup each time you quit Lightroom. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with using a database to store your image edits...as long as you have them all backed up–which is easy to do with LR. Under the Lightroom menu, select Catalog Preferences...and in the General select the option that makes you feel better. I have it set to daily but if I haven't done a lot of work when I quit, I dismiss the back up via ad dialog.

     

    You really need to get your head around the concept of "parametric" image editing where you don't edit the original pixels but you edit the settings parametrically and store those setting in a database. You edit parameters of the image not the image itself–far more efficient than trying to constantly edit and re-edit your originals...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 18, 2012 8:41 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 7:32 AM   in reply to Papa Ben

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 1:17 PM   in reply to Papa Ben

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 7:54 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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 )

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 8:32 PM   in reply to Papa Ben 17

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 19, 2012 9:19 PM   in reply to John Blair

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2012 12:31 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff, I've been working with Lightroom for a short while.   My learning curve at present concerns metadata and saving it upon export.

    I don't mind minimizing the metadata for exported files, as copyright is the most important detail for my uses.  But even when I export with

    metadata *not minimized, I cannot find my copyright listed anywhere when I click "get info" on my exported image.  Can you explain why

    I do see my copyright listed in the LR metadata panel for an image before export, but later cannot see it embedded in the exported file?

     

    Thanks so much,

    Barbara B

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 9:22 AM   in reply to bowenarro

    Seems to me that the OP's original question is a very valid one...

     

    Suppose you are using Lightroom to edit a photo (do some color manipulations etc.) and then want to have a copy of that photo's file to send to a friend or otherwise. Well, you're not going to send your complete Lightroom program and catalog to your friend, you only want to send a JPG that he/she can open and see the edits you have made to the photo.

     

    I would think that the way to do this would be to just export the image to a new file, probably in a different folder someplace. Once this is done, you can do whatever you want with this file and still have the original in its original location.

     

    Am I wrong?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 9:41 AM   in reply to californiajay

    Californiajay,  You are correct in your description of what you can do by exporting the edited version of the image to a new file other than one that contains the original source.    Yes that is possible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 9:43 AM   in reply to californiajay

    californiajay,

    You wrote: "

    I would think that the way to do this would be to just export the image to a new file, probably in a different folder someplace. Once this is done, you can do whatever you want with this file and still have the original in its original location.

     

    Am I wrong?"

     

    You are absolutely correct in that BUT you are not saving the Lr edits in the source file by exporting. Exporting creates a new image file with the Lr edits written into it, but the source file remains as it was before. The OP wanted that the Lr edits are written into the image pixels of the original image file.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 24, 2012 6:04 PM   in reply to web-weaver

    I agree that Lightroom is amazing in many ways.  But this is very disappointing that I cannot save to the original file.

     

    I've seen many photo 'database' programs come and go over the years.  The databases that I've spent many hours sorting, catagorizing, etc gets flushed when the program gets outdated.  My file structure and the files themselves generally do not.  Granted, Adobe will probably be around for a while for a while but this is a fatal flaw for me as well. 

     

    I think many folks here are missing the point.  I have many types of pictures that once I edit them, I will NEVER edit them again.  Certain pictures are also not useful to me unless they are saved in their edited form.  For example, if I take a personal picture of my kid doing something and wish to make it viewable on some other device like a PS2 or other device for family enjoyment, my edited files do not get displayed unless I re-export them.  Now I have two files that my kids have to sift through, one that doesn't look great, and one that is how I intended it. 

     

    I love the catalog method for most things, but this is such a basic feature that I cannot believe it is intentionally being left out.  At least you could go the microsoft route and give me three warning messages telling me that I'm doing something I shouldn't, but let me overwrite the files if I wish please!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 17, 2012 6:29 AM   in reply to Papa Ben

    I had the same requirement to save in JPEGs files all non-metadata edits performed in Lightroom, in order to share modified pictures without duplicating files. By the way, I think it’s going to be more and more required by casual Lightroom users, as people get used to instant photo sharing in many situations where quantity matters more than quality

     

     

    Here’s a nearly automatic (at least, scalable) solution that works, although it slightly lowers the quality by re-compressing the original pictures.


    1. Once for all:
    • Download and install the wonderful Lightroom plugin “jf Run Any Command”, provided as donationware by Jeffrey Friedl here: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/run-any-command. This “export filter” plugin allows you to run a command of your choice with each exported file, as part of the export while it’s going on. (You may also browse Jeffrey’s blog to find many other useful and beautiful things.)
    • In Lightroom, pre-define an export settings as follows:
      • Export to the hard drive, to the original picture folder, without adding the exported file to the catalog
      • Name the exported file “EXPORTED-{Filename}” (or anything different from the original file name)
      • JPEG format, 76% quality (see An Analysis of Lightroom JPEG Export Quality Settings at http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality)
      • Keep all metadata
      • Here’s the interesting part, the Run Any Command settings:
        • Command to execute for each exported picture: copy "{FILE}" "{Path}\{LIBRARYFILENAME}" (this replaces the original file with a copy of the exported file)
        • Command to execute upon export completion: del {FILES} (this deletes all exported files).

    NB: One could wonder why not directly export with the original file name and silently replace the original files (I believe Lightroom would allow this). It’s just a matter of error handling: in case the export goes wrong, no original file is changed at all.


    1. The easy part: each time you want to save edits:
    • In Lightroom, select the pictures to save, and export them with the pre-defined settings. You're almost done. The JPEG files are ok, but inside Lightroom you see the modification effects doubled, as their specifications remain in the catalog database and they apply on modified JPEG instead of the original files.
    • While the entire set of "saved" pictures is still selected, in the Develop module switch Autosync on and click Reinit to erase all modification specifications from the catalog for all pictures, then press CTRL-S to write down to disk any metadata updated by Lightroom -and accept if required to confirm that Lightroom values should replace externally set values.

     

    Stephane

     

    PS: Papa Ben, I'm curious about the decision you  finally made

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to Papa Ben

    I understand, Papa Ben.

    I'm new to Lightroom, and still under the magic of discovery, but really enjoying its superior ability to dynamically select pictures according to pre- and user-defined criteria, as well as to automate publishing (with one ore two plugins installed). I don't use 10% of the Develop tools, but found the ones I use pretty well designed. The big flaw is this missing Save button for casual users like us...

    Thanks for sharing your experience. Have a nice and long race!

    Stephane

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 3:43 PM   in reply to web-weaver

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 3:54 PM   in reply to FLYBOYSOPWITH

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 4:09 PM   in reply to smart.fr

    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".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 20, 2012 5:09 PM   in reply to FLYBOYSOPWITH

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 8:52 AM   in reply to richardplondon

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

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