Can I Duplicate a File inside Lightroom?

[Guest]

I Need to make a real copy (not a virtual one) of a photo so I can keep each one in a different folder inside the same catalog. In Bridge this is very easy, I label the photos I want to copy then I drag them to the destination folder pressing the control key until I get a plus sign.

In lightroom I do the same, I even got the plus sign but when I release the photos are moved, not copied.

Any help?

[Hal P Anderson · Accepted solution]

You'll have to import them a second time if you want them in two different folders. Lightroom is designed so that you don't need to have two physical copies of the original image--it might make sense for you to see if you can use collections and virtual copies instead of folders and duplicate copies to organize your work.

[JW Stephenson]

Though not "automatic", you might try the following from within LR to save searching around in windows:

     right-click the directory that has the image you wish to copy and select "Show in Explorer"

     find the image by name, right-click that image and select "Copy"

     close the explorer window and return to the LR window

     right-click the directory in LR that you wish to place the copied image into select "Show in Explorer"

     right-click the directory in Explorer that you wish to place the copied image into select "Paste"

     close the explorer window and return to the LR window

     right-click the directory in LR that you just copied the image into and select "Sync Folder"

Not as simple as it should be, but it works and is a somewhat easy way to find the image than simply browsing around in windows.

Good Luck,

Jeff

[sunnysixteen]

What if you create a virtual copy, then rename that virtual copy something different. Then would you have 2 copies?

[Guest]

sunnysixteen wrote:

What if you create a virtual copy, then rename that virtual copy something different. Then would you have 2 copies?

No. You would just have a virtual copy with a specific name you have chosen. The source image would not be duplicated, which is what is being asked for here.

[courtneyb60732630]

I thought this was a great idea at first... but it doesn't work.

Changing the filename of the virtual copy also changes the filename of the original image.

[Guest]

My workflow is as follows:

I have all my photos on an iMac, normally about 300 per shoot. I Make a selection of the best images and put a red label to copy them to my MacBookPro, normally around 20.

Lightroom (on my laptop) works great for viewing and selecting the images from my iMac in the same network.

@ Hal: Importing the selected photos (20 out of 300) again wouldn't work for me unless I first move the selected files to a different folder.

@ JW: That would be an option but I'm trying to resolve this without going to OS windows.

@ sunnysixteen: didn't worked... I can rename a virtual copy but I can't move it. If I move the original, the virtual copy moves too.

I found another solution: I selected the source folder with the 300 images, the 20 that I want to copy are marked with red label. I apply a filter to see just the selected images and then I export them with this preset:

Export Location:

Export to: Same Folder as original photo

Put in Subfolder: "Duplicate Files"

Add to This Catalog: Yes

File Settings:

Format: Original

The files are then duplicated on a new folder on my iMac and I can then move than folder to the location I want on my laptop computer.

Thanks for the suggestions!

[victoria--LReTcR]

I'm having the same problem.

I make a virtual copy so I can change it to b&w or sepia and I can't figure out how to make it another print in that same file.  It seems to stack the copies but doesn't make them real. I just need this for proofing purposes. any help would be appreciated.

[Ian Lyons]

Victoria, You can export the VC as  DNG, TIFF, PSD or JPEG, which will create a real file. This new file can be automatically imported back into catalog at end of export process by setting Add to This Catalog option to on.

[victoria--LReTcR]

Thank You

[Don0344-hBNq7P]

That works great! And you can then delete the VC.

[EyeAmMJH]

GREAT ANSWER! Thanks Ian.  I've set up an export profile to create a copy of the file using original file format and re-add back to lightroom.  While I love using virtual copies, I often need the copy to exist outside of LR and in a folder I can copy/backup etc.  This gives me a simple method. 

Thanks again

[Alexir5]

I like Guillermo's idea, but I often want to duplicate edited jpegs. Surely, any kind of exporting (as opposed to copying), regardless of settings, will involve degrading the file?

Alex

[gnits999]

You can export as an original. Just pick the directory you want to copy it to within the export dialogue screen.  Lightroom will do the rest.  if you do this regularly then create an export template. Right click then on the image in library view, select export, select "export as original" template....done.  You decide in the export dialogue if you wish to keep the new file in the lightroom catelog.

[Alexir5]

Right, ok, thanks! I had the idea that (other than directly copying or burning) any kind of 'processing' for jpegs, even opening in PS, saving and closing, would damage the quality. I had also assumed that the 'export as original' would simply mean the file extension was unchanged, but since other processing export options are available, that the files still go through some kind of processing.

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:36:34 -0700

From: forums@adobe.com

To: alexrumford@hotmail.com

Subject: Can I Duplicate a File inside Lightroom?

You can export as an original. Just pick the directory you want to copy it to within the export dialogue screen. Lightroom will do the rest. if you do this regularly then create an export template. Right click then on the image in library view, select export, select "export as original" template....done. You decide in the export dialogue if you wish to keep the new file in the lightroom catelog.

>

[Alex Rumford]

Sorry to pick up this old thread - I'd forgotten about it. I hadn't raised my last question properly, so it feels unanswered. I know about "Export as Original", but it's the process that concerns me.

As I understand it, compression in creating a jpeg degrades the image. Are you saying that the "Export as Original" isn't so much creating, as copying (and therefore not degrading)? And what happens if I add keywording to the jpeg before exporting as original - surely this means the duplicated file isn't identical. Therefore, isn't a new file being created? And if so, is compressing taking place?

For this reason I play it safe and do all copying of files outside of Lightroom, which is tedious. I'd like to know if it's alose unnecessary!

Thanks!

[Hal P Anderson]

The metadata stored in the jpeg isn't in the compressed part of the file...only the image data is compressed. Lightroom doesn't recompress the images when it writes its metadata to the jpeg. The only lossy compression happens when you create a jpeg that incorporates your Lightroom image edits, and that only happens once, so degradation is kept to an absolute minimum. Exporting as original doesn't change the image, so no recompression happens.

Hal

[gnits999]

I just completed an export as original, storing the original in a new sub-folder and including the new file in the catelog.

When the export finished, the new sub folder contained a CR2 file and an xml file. I assume the xml contains all the previous metadata associated with the original.

When I looked at the copied original in Lightroom it initially displayed a very dark image, which then changed to the appearance of my original Lightroom settings for this particular raw file. (This is what I expected).

The number of bytes in both files were identical (23mb 5d2 CR2 file).

I then used Beyond Compare ( a really good tool for lots of things.... I use it for backing up my files ) to do a Hex comparison of the original cr2 file and the new CR2 file. (Do not do a Data Comparison as I did first, because this option is expecting structured data such as csv, etc)

Beyond Compare does a byte by byte comparison.

Absolutely zero differences found.

I use Export as Original all the time, especially where I want different versions of the original and especially where different crops are required. I know this takes a bit more space, but space is cheap.

The main reason I export as originals is that I have been burnt in the past when importing, exporting or merging catelogs. There are lots of gotcha's in relation to virtual copies when trying to synchronise say a field laptop with a studio workstation.

This works for me. Test this out for yourself. Export as Original and then use a utility to compare the two files.

I hope this helps.

[Alex Rumford]

Thanks Hal and Gnits, great information. Much appreciated.

[penpicker]

You can go to Bridge, right click the photo, select duplicate, it will add 'copy' to the filename (change name if you want).  Then go back to Lightroom, right click the folder it's in and tell it to synchronize, select your renamed photo, and wa-la, you have a duplicate.  Not too hard...  Hope this helps.

[joshmayes]

Unfortunately, duplicating files using Bridge as you describe (or copying in Finder/Windows Explorer), outside of Lightroom, then bringing copies back in (via Synchronize Folder), is the best method I have found.  The "correct" answer above misses the point, that users want control over whether they make a true "duplicate" copy or a virtual copy.  Both are important functions, depending on a user's particular workflow and needs of the moment.  The Export preset (workaround) idea suggested above, to export "Original" is pretty good, except for one flaw...It may not change the file size or byte structure, but it does "create" a new file, rather than "copy" or "duplicate" it.  This is evidenced by the created and modified dates which will show the date/time of the export, not matching to the original file.  Bridge's Copy or Duplicate functions, or Finder's (Mac) or Windows Explorer's (PC) copy function will NOT change the file in any way that I can see, and thus is the best solution. This is disappointing, still 5 years after this problem was raised here.  Unless I am missing some new functionality in Lightroom, Adobe apparently REALLY likes virtual copies and wants us to just trust their workflow is better than ours.  Personally, I am tired of going around Lightroom to make copies, when I need them.

[SebastiaanFP]

Yes, I really love the creative cloud flexibility, and the various apps included, but for Lightroom I also still want a simple "create/duplicate into new real file and instantly add to the catalog" function. Even though I know LR doesn't change my RAW-files, I still want to work on a copy. When I choose to edit a photo, I always first make a duplicate of it, which I then move to my "Lightroom Work Folder" And then when the editing is ready, I burn it into a DNG for master file. And then I move both the duplicated copy of the RAW file with the edits as metadata together with it's exported to DNG copy to my final folder called "Master Copies".