Lightroom edits

[Devonjon]

Hi

I recognise editing photo's in Lightroom doesn't actually impact the original. I also understand that by saving metadata to file and auto apply changes into XMP provides a slight workaround to that.

So - here's the (really really) dum question. Having test edited a dark snap into something brighter I did the metadata changes in Lightroom. And yes, I separately opened up the original photo in Photoshop and it showed the brightened image nicely.

However, when I view the picture in explorer or open in MS Photo's its showing the original dark photo (no edits). likewise when I back my original photo's up on my
Amazon drive  - and thus able to view them on kindles and firesticks around house nice n easy - the same issue arises. Dark photo no edits.

Its a serious pain as (for me) using the Amazon drive photos means I can get family viewing snaps (or vids) on my 40" telly (within hours of taking photo) and not hunched around a PC.  Basically If I edited a photo to improve it , its a one off , done , won't return,  end of.

Now I can appreciate MS and Amazon are basic image viewers and not intelligent enough to be reading metadata/XMP so.... is there a swift solution to making edits , which are made to the original and thus edits are showing in any version of software or system used to view photo??

Much appreciated for steer.

DJ

[john beardsworth]

These other applications don't understand or interpret Adobe's adjustments. To share your edited images with others, you need to export them in some way.

So you could use export, or a publish service (hard drive option), or use LrMobile's sharing via lightroom.adobe.com which allows others to use browsers to see your edited images, if you have CC.

[Just Shoot Me]

The edits store in both the catalog file and the XMP Sidecar file are only readable by another Adobe product, LR and ACR. What you are seeing in the Windows viewers and on your Amazon storage is from the embedded JPG file that is in every RAW file and yes they aren't reading and applying the edits you have made.

The only way to BURN those edits into the actual image file is to Export it, in LR, to some other image file format, TIFF, JPG, or in the case of ACR>PS Save it in either of those 2 formats.

This is the same as with any other RAW image Editor. The edits, AFAIK, are never really baked into the actual file until it is saved/exported to some other file format. And only that image editor program can properly read the edits made in that program.

[Devonjon]

Thanks both for quick reply. Got a sinking feeling about why I know recall seeing moans about absence of a 'save' button!

Okay so here's what I've done (including initial photo to lightroom step):

1. hook camera up, drop pictures (jpg - don't ask) onto a desktop folder

2. do a quick skim via MS photo's to delete duplicates, shots of feet , rubbish etc

3. Use advanced renamer (old tool still gives comfort - yet to work out if Lr rename can do this for me as simply) to set photo names to my standard naming

4. open up my media drive and drop photo's into my 2017 (yearly) organised photo folders.

5. boot up lightroom, tell it to import new photo's found in that folder

6. now review new photo's, make basic (do once) edits on contrast, brightness etc

7. select an edited photo, export it back into original folder, using the unique rename option

8. delete original

9. go to edited photo I wish to retain, rename it (ie: remove the unqiue '-2' to end of filename LR inserted) so its renamed back to original

10. that's it, I now have my edited photo, in original LR catalogue , with original name and thus when backed up to cloud the edited picture shows via Amazon etc.

I've just done that with one photo, it works, but by gum its a few painful steps more than I was used to with Elements and I'd certainly risk getting very confused when doing in batches.

DJ

[dj_paige]

There are so much easier workflows, that's one of the great benefits of Lightroom, but to obtain the benefits of those easier workflows, you'd have to stop doing some of the things you have always done. Whether or not you want to stop doing those things is up to you, but you can't get to "easier workflow" and do the things you have always done.

The easier workflow (without a lot of detail for now);

1. Use Lightroom to import the photos directly from your camera or cell phone, and have those photos stored in whatever folder you desire on your computer, all in one import action
2. Edit, add keywords or other metadata as needed
3. Distribute to whatever web service or location you want using a Lightroom publish service, or other function in LR (Export, e-mail, Web module, Slideshow module, Print module)

There's no need to delete the original, nor is it recommended. Deleting originals is unnecessary extra work that defeats the purpose of Lightroom and will cause you problems at some point in the future. I state that deleting originals is a very poor idea. I have been known to use the phrase "horrible idea" about deleting originals.

There's also no need for all these file manipulations that you describe. And, generally, there's no need for renaming (although some people feel it's very important, I do not feel that way); renaming is an extra step and only you can decide if the value of renaming is worth the effort, I clearly have decided that for me it is not worth the effort.

[Devonjon]

Many thanks

I can understand why some would say horrible but I like an uncluttered life. I would say 95% of time a photo I tweak for simple lighting etc is the one I'll keep to document life's passage and the original I'd never refer to again, wouldn't wish in my core catalogue folder nor see duplicated on my cloud. Appreciate space is no longer a cost issue but the thought of nearly doubling my collection with originals I never want to see again makes me shudder.  🙂 but that's me. I like reality which shows in my snaps, not overly manicured falsified versions (or visions) of reality which weren't there when I was taking picture. Those that like that and go through extensive manipulations I can well understand would retain original. 

Likewise wrt naming , I like future proof, my wife is distinctly not teccy. If I 'expire' I at least know she can access the PC, see media drive folder called photo's and then see a string of yearly folders containing year_month_date_time_unqiue name. Without need for any software knowledge.  

For me I'm wanting Lr to be my visual portal into my collection not a temporary or transitional stage before exporting into a final home. Lr is my organiser of snaps on media drive and which drive then gets backed up (via 3 different methods and outlets) , including cloud for viewing as and when.

I can well see me rethinking and setting up a temporary catalogue (away from cloud back up source) for all new photo's and export those once tweaked and tuned into my permanent home catalogue. I can see that working. Still wouldn't beat a 'save' button though 🙂

J 

[john beardsworth · Accepted solution]

Devonjon  wrote

I can well see me rethinking and setting up a temporary catalogue (away from cloud back up source) for all new photo's and export those once tweaked and tuned into my permanent home catalogue. I can see that working. Still wouldn't beat a 'save' button though 🙂

Avoid that temptation. It's hard enough managing hundreds / thousands / tens of.... while keeping everything recorded in one place. Until you feel comfortable with LR, and unless there's a really good reason, stick to one catalogue and don't fragment control of your pictures.

[Devonjon]

Thank you - helpful and constructive

[dj_paige]

I can well see me rethinking and setting up a temporary catalogue (away from cloud back up source) for all new photo's and export those once tweaked and tuned into my permanent home catalogue. I can see that working. Still wouldn't beat a 'save' button though 🙂

I agree with the esteemed Mr Beardsworth, this is a poor idea, a waste of time and effort.

Seriously, if you're going to use Lightroom effectively, you might as well get this idea of having a "Save" button out of your head, as it is not helpful. Lightroom is what it is, and once you come to grips with that, you have a much better chance of using Lightroom effectively.

I can understand why some would say horrible but I like an uncluttered life. I would say 95% of time a photo I tweak for simple lighting etc is the one I'll keep to document life's passage and the original I'd never refer to again, wouldn't wish in my core catalogue folder nor see duplicated on my cloud. Appreciate space is no longer a cost issue but the thought of nearly doubling my collection with originals I never want to see again makes me shudder.  🙂 but that's me. I like reality which shows in my snaps, not overly manicured falsified versions (or visions) of reality which weren't there when I was taking picture. Those that like that and go through extensive manipulations I can well understand would retain original. 

Likewise wrt naming , I like future proof, my wife is distinctly not teccy. If I 'expire' I at least know she can access the PC, see media drive folder called photo's and then see a string of yearly folders containing year_month_date_time_unqiue name. Without need for any software knowledge.  

For me I'm wanting Lr to be my visual portal into my collection not a temporary or transitional stage before exporting into a final home. Lr is my organiser of snaps on media drive and which drive then gets backed up (via 3 different methods and outlets) , including cloud for viewing as and when.

If you believe all of these are valid reasons for doing the things you described in your earlier message (they're not valid for me, but they can certainly be valid for you), then you would be very wise not to use Lightroom, as it doesn't meet your needs, and it will only cause you frustration. There are other organizing/editing programs that would probably meet your needs better, and result in your doing less work and having less frustration.

The entirety of your comments so far indicates that you haven't grasped the underlying principles of Lightroom, and that you also find it necessary to work in ways that are not effective (and sometimes harmful) with Lightroom. Again, it's your choice to work in whatever way you deem appropriate for you, but please take this message as a major RED FLAG against working this way in Lightroom.

[Devonjon]

oh dear. take a chill pill. keep in mind its just software.

[dj_paige]

It's just software that has caused a lot of people a lot of frustration and wasted time, who enter into their LR usage with similar thoughts as yours, that they have an established way of doing things that isn't going to change. Even if you don't want to hear the message, perhaps others who might be reading this thread will benefit from me saying these things.

[Devonjon]

Good lord - your one of those must have last worders that haunt forums. Never said I didn't want to change, never said I didn't want to hear?!  Words in mouth eh? I do want to learn and understand and deploy solutions that work for me, taking on board constructive nudges as and when. No one needs to be barked at by pseudo drill instructors waving red flags who are rapid to demean and stomp over an issue with their way or the highway approach without not a jot of empathy. Am laughing as I actually really like Ir it does far better what I want to do. The End.

[john beardsworth]

You know, Paige is giving reasonable advice to you, very much in the same ball park as mine. You don't sound too far from understanding the Lightroom concept, which is different from other applications and requires a few adjustments in one's workflow. Adapting to suit how it works is the key to getting the most out of it. That should be true of any tool, of course.

Do look at the three sharing methods I mentioned in my first post.