Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Editing Virtual Copies -- edits not saved to sidecar?

Feb 20, 2008 2:02 AM

Even though LR is a metadata editor that does not change the original photos, I still like to create a virtual copy when I edit photos -- I edit the copy and then stack this with the original. This allows me to easily change the library to show me the original version, the edited version, or both next to each other. I noticed, however, that there is no "Save Metadata to file" option when I have the copy highlighted. Does this mean that the ONLY copy of the edited version of this file is in my library, and that all my edits are ONLY saved in the library file and not in the sidecar? I thought that the sidecar would include the virtual copy edits, but this is apparently not the case.

If so, should I be doing this the other way around -- i.e. leaving the virtual copy alone, and making edits to the "original"?

Also, is there a better way to go about this process? Again, I understand that this is a metadata editor that save edits as metadata, but there still seem to be some advantages to editing a second copy of a photo instead of always making edits to the "original."

Thanks for any feedback on this,

Larry
 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 20, 2008 3:10 AM   in reply to lalittle
    A quote from Lighroom's help on Virtual Copies:

    >Note: In Lightroom, you can have multiple versions of photos by applying different adjustment settings to virtual copies of the
    original (master) photos. Virtual copies dont exist as actual photos, but are metadata in the catalog database that store the different sets of adjustments.

    However, despite the fact that virtual copies only exist in the catalog, you can export a Virtual Copy and the export process will also create a sidecar file. (if the virtual copy is a raw file and you choose "Original" as the format in File Settings on the export screen)
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2008 2:25 AM   in reply to lalittle
    I agree with you Larry that in the long run it's not a good idea to keep metadata only in the library. So I like to keep my metadata (including adjustments) both in the library and as XMP. I would also like to see the metadata for virtual copies stored to disk as a separate file, just as a backup. Of course the adjustment-info in XMP is only useful to Lightroom and Camera Raw, so we have to rely on Adobe anyway, but the image catalog will at least be more robust if the data is stored both in the database and as separate files.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 5:00 AM   in reply to lalittle
    I think that one of the reasons for not having VC data in the sidecar of the original file is that the other metadata like keywords may differ between the original and the VC.

    But I don't see any problems with having the VC as a XMP-file only.

    H
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 6:25 AM   in reply to lalittle
    > What I don't understand is why LR doesn't just save the adjustment data for the virtual copies in the sidecar file along with all the other data.

    What side car should be used? You know, you can delete the master and still have the VC, which is tied to the original. If you do that, should LR delete the old side car and then create a new one? Should it create a separate side car for each VC? That would mean multiple side car files point to a single original file. I'm not sure any of that is allowed in the current xmp spec.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 7:19 AM   in reply to lalittle
    Well the sidecar does contain Develop information for multiple snapshots, so it could do so for VC's. It's just a matter of priorities.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 7:21 AM   in reply to lalittle
    Snapshots can't be separated from the master image the way VCs can.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 7:34 AM   in reply to lalittle
    There is no real reason why snapshots couldn't appear as independent items like VCs (that's effectively how Aperture tries to do it).

    The thing is, if storing VC information in XMP was a priority, it could be done, but it would need work to lay out the data structure and do the coding. It just isn't really high priority. After all, Lightroom's partly about escaping from sidecar hell.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 7:46 AM   in reply to lalittle
    Not sure about that - snapshots weren't in sidecars in 1.0, and were added in 1.1. So the single-point of data we have indicates adding more functionality to the xmp data, not less. I may be the only one, but I don't use any LR functionality that isn't stored in the xmp data, as it's my means of syncing to other machines, and my main means of backing up the database.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 8:04 AM   in reply to lalittle
    What's so hard about Import and Export as Catalog? I regularly move work between my PC and my Mac and would be happy if I never saw another sidecar again.
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 8:07 AM   in reply to lalittle
    > What's so hard about Import and Export as Catalog?

    You have to know what needs syncing.

    Sidecars for 2000 images that need syncing are a couple of meg. My main catalog is about 4 gig. I sync over wireless, so the difference between syncing a few meg and a few gig is huge (seconds versus hours).
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 26, 2008 8:11 AM   in reply to lalittle
    lalittle

    This is another of several issues that could be solved(improved)if LR produced a proxy jpeg of user controlled size (small or working size)that contained the metadata automatically and paired it up with the RAW original, instead of sidecars, as LightZone does.

    In Lightzone one can open the jpeg to continue or change development, or open the Raw and develop it differently, and have a second jpeg (3rd,4th, etc) with the metadata for that version automatically embedded. Virtually any application will see the developed jpeg proxies so they are immediately useful without the hassle of export. LightZone used sidecars in earlier versions, but moved to the jpeg proxies--a vast improvement from several perspectives.

    Life with LightRoom would be improved by emulating LZ in this--and several other features, including selective color and regional masks.
     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)