• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Making a duplicate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Asuch

New Member
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
7
Location
Manhasset, NY
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Cloud Service
I am a relatively new user of LR, but many years of Aperture. I am sure I am missing something simple:(I could not find it in any book or forum). I wish to make a duplicate of a photo, change it to B&W, and than change the name and put the new photo into another folder. I wish to keep the new photo as an original, but totally separate from the first original (different name, etc).
Thanks
asuch
 
Hi Asuch welcome to the forums,
LR has a much better way of doing what you want. It's called Virtual Copies. With the image selected you want to duplicate, go to the Photo menu, scroll down and select Create Virtual Copy. This is better because it does not create another image, just another set of instructions. You can adjust, alter, do whatever you want to the virtual copy. It does not alter your original or master. LR is designed to work non-destructively. Also you don't have to save or export your changed (virtual copy) to maintain it.

In LR, images do not reside inside of LR. They can be scattered all over your system, internal, external hard drives, LR leaves them there, just making note of where they are. So your original and the virtual copy (or copies), come from the same image file you imported to your computer. It's just instructions inside of LR, waiting to be carried out when you choose to export in whatever way. You can export from those "image(s) whenever you desire, the changes are left intact, for the next time, day, month, year, whenever. Just make sure you properly maintain LR's catalog, that's where everything you do inside of LR is kept. Also if you are using LR for it's fantastic DAM, then do not do anything, like moving, deleting files outside of LR.

I hope that helps, if not, one of the LR Gurus will be able to make things clearer.
 
Hi Asuch welcome to the forums,
LR has a much better way of doing what you want. It's called Virtual Copies. With the image selected you want to duplicate, go to the Photo menu, scroll down and select Create Virtual Copy. This is better because it does not create another image, just another set of instructions. You can adjust, alter, do whatever you want to the virtual copy. It does not alter your original or master. LR is designed to work non-destructively. Also you don't have to save or export your changed (virtual copy) to maintain it.

In LR, images do not reside inside of LR. They can be scattered all over your system, internal, external hard drives, LR leaves them there, just making note of where they are. So your original and the virtual copy (or copies), come from the same image file you imported to your computer. It's just instructions inside of LR, waiting to be carried out when you choose to export in whatever way. You can export from those "image(s) whenever you desire, the changes are left intact, for the next time, day, month, year, whenever. Just make sure you properly maintain LR's catalog, that's where everything you do inside of LR is kept. Also if you are using LR for it's fantastic DAM, then do not do anything, like moving, deleting files outside of LR.

I hope that helps, if not, one of the LR Gurus will be able to make things clearer.

Frozenframe;
Your explanation is clear and concise. Thank you.
I still have a question on this. If I make a Virtual Copy (which I do understand), I was under the impression that if I change the "File Name" on the Virtual Copy, it will also change on the File Name on the original. Is this correct?
Is there a way of changing the File name on the Virtual Copy, so that it is different than the File Name on the original/ Or am I missing something?
Thanks again
asuch
 
You're correct on renaming the image file. However if you'll notice that LR appends Copy_# to the end of the file name. What you can do is change the "Copy" to something more descriptive. In the Library module, go to the Metadata panel, choose EXIF & IPTC or just IPTC, then just below the file name, you should see the Copy name. Highlight it, and you can change it. Since the virtual copies are just instructions, there's really no need to rename them though.

That said you can export Virtual Copies, just like the originals, and then provide a name for the file LR will create. Another nice thing about Virtual Copies, is the ability to edit in another program, say PS, NIK, On1. LR creates a file with the edit instructions based on the virtual copy, sends that to the third party program. Then once returned you will have what appears to be 3 images, the original (Master), Copy_1, and now the TIFF, PSD, or whatever format file returned. Now this file is a physical file. I think that is better, than having 2 additional files, just for the sake of seeing different styles. Make sense?
 
LR has a much better way of doing what you want.

Are you comparing it to Aperture?

It's called Virtual Copies.

Aperture provides the exact same functionality. In Aperture these are called Versions.

NB: each is a great and useful program. Neither was better, overall, than the other, except that now Adobe actively supports Lightroom and Apple abandoned Aperture.

If I make a Virtual Copy (which I do understand), I was under the impression that if I change the "File Name" on the Virtual Copy, it will also change on the File Name on the original. Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Additionally, _all Virtual Copies must remain in the same folder as each other and as the Original on which they are based_.

There are a at least three things to consider as you work out a solution to your need.

1. Copy Name. Each Photo (that is, each record in the Lightroom database) has, in addition to the file name with it shares with all Virtual Copies based on the same Original File, a Copy Name that is its own and independent of the Copy Names of all of the other Virtual Copies based on the same Original File. You can have the Copy Name show in the Metadata panel. This Copy Name is available to be used in the naming of files you create when you export a Photo from your Lightroom database. ("Export" means "create a file based on this Photo that I can share with other programs".) So you could assign the Copy Name "All Pixels set to Zero Saturation" to the Photo that has had all pixels set to zero saturation, and then use that Copy Name as part of the File Name of the File you create when you export that Virtual Copy Photo.

As with Aperture, it is helpful to wrap your brain around the fact that Virtual Copies (in Aperture, Versions) do not exist as image-format files until you create image-format files by exporting. (Lightroom misleads users who right-click a Virtual Copy and select "Show in Finder": it shows the user the file that was imported, which is almost always not the same image as the Virtual Copy. The context-sensitive menu item should be changed to "Show Original in Finder".)

2. Storage Structure and Retrieval Structure. Folders — as in Finder folders, which is what Folders are in Lightroom (_not at all_ what Folders are in Aperture) — are of limited use for organizing many Photographer's output. You should see if using Collections (in Aperture, "Albums") better fits your work and workflow. As a general practice (for Lightroom and for Aperture), I suggest using a structure of Finder folders to _store_ your digital camera files, and create a structure of Collections in Lightroom (in Lightroom, Collections are grouped into Collection Sets, which are quite similar to what Folders are in Aperture) to _retrieve_ your work. At its simplest, put every shoot into its own folder, and put all output groupings into their own Collection.

3. Duplicating Originals. Cave Canem: this is almost certainly _not_ a good practice. The easiest way I know to duplicate an Original is to right-click and select "Edit in Photoshop". If prompted, select one of the "edit a copy" options. In Photoshop, do nothing, but close the file and select "Save Changes". Back in Lightroom you will have two Photos, stacked. Each has it's own Original. You can drag either to any folder, and the other will stay put.

(Minor edit to first paragraph.)
 
Last edited:
There are pros and cons to virtual copies.

To answer your specific query at the top post...... in the Export Dialogue .... You can.

  • Export As Original
  • Decide where you want to put it.
  • Decide if you want the exported image to still be managed by Lr....

And many other options.
 
I would like to thank Frozenframe and Kirby and Gnits for the detailed explanations. Going forward on LR will now be easier and clearer. As I go along, I am starting to like LR more and more. It does have a learning curve that is long for me, but the end results are wonderful.

In my particular case I was taking old photos, from many different years, and converting to a completely different appearance. The finished project has no relation to the Master (Original), and I would not be going back to the Master. I did want to keep the newly made items all together.

I did try “Virtual” and changing the Copy Name, etc. and now have a better understanding of LR.

I also tried it by adding a keyword to the new pics, and this could work in my case.

As I get further into LR, I may change my way of working, but in this limited case, I ended up duplicating by exporting to a folder, changing the name in the export pop-up, and then reimporting, and placing into a Collection.

A little convoluted but not very time-consuming.
 
In my particular case I was taking old photos, from many different years, and converting to a completely different appearance. The finished project has no relation to the Master (Original), and I would not be going back to the Master. I did want to keep the newly made items all together.

I did try “Virtual” and changing the Copy Name, etc. and now have a better understanding of LR.

I also tried it by adding a keyword to the new pics, and this could work in my case.

As I get further into LR, I may change my way of working, but in this limited case, I ended up duplicating by exporting to a folder, changing the name in the export pop-up, and then reimporting, and placing into a Collection.

A little convoluted but not very time-consuming.
I realize you now have a workflow you can live with, but as Kirby noted it's not ideal to use duplicate files as opposed to virtual copies in general. I see you don't want to preserve a connection to the original, and by importing a new file (even if it is a derivative of the original) you've done that. But it's a lot harder to go back from that, while using virtual copies gives you the separation AND the ability to go back to the original. I don't know what your purpose is in working this way, and I assume you can live with the downsides, but I thought the warning bore repeating.

But another way that might be easier is to PUBLISH the BWs rather than EXPORT them and then IMPORT them.

It's sort of a compromise between VCs, which remain in Lr, and exporting/importing. By publishing to hard drive you put a real new file—the BW—out there in the filesystem, just like an export. But you don't need to import; the publish service keeps track of that published BW out there in a folder (or on Flickr or in 500px or wherever). And it's automatically put in its own publish collection, with any new filename you want. The difference between publishing and export is that there remains a one way relationship between the image in the publish collection (whether it be the original or VC) and the new file, the BW in this case, out in the filesystem. The difference between publishing and export/import is that Lr never imports that BW file like when you export it then import it. So there's no duplication internally.

Sounds complicated, but it's actually easier than import/export. I do up a lot of images for say printing for family. Because I use a service, I have to export them. But I use them over and over, so want to manage them in Lr. But instead of exporting say "mom.raw" as "mom for print.jpg" and then importing "mom for print.jpg" I use a publish-to-hard-drive service to publish from "mom.raw" to "mom for print.jpg" on a drive. So "mom.raw" shows up in my "Publish to JPG for Printing" publish collection automatically (as mom.raw). "mom for print.jpg" is then a real file out on my thumbdrive (where I keep 'em so I can take 'em to where I print them). If I want to go to "mom for print.jpg" I just use the command "Show Published File in Finder." And say mom says she thinks I over-sharpened her face (uh oh, but no no). I can edit "mom.raw" and republish, and it overwrites "mom for print.jpg" with the new version on the thumbdrive.

Again, it's simpler to do than describe.

The upshot is you would get all those real BW files out in the filesystem, but still have a relationship with them, and with the original, without the bother of importing all those files and the overhead and duplication that causes. And without have to use any VCs. Might take a look at that option.
 
Rob211, Thanks for your thoughts. I have never yet looked at "Publishing"....so much to learn on LR. Sounds very interesting and will be looking at it. By receiving all this new information, and trying to digest it, I see that LR has an incredible amount of options for almost everything. And almost all would work for my needs in a simpler manner than I used... just takes me a long time to digest it all. Thanks again to everyone who gave such detailed and thoughtful comments.
Asuch
 
I heartily endorse Rob's recommendation to use the Publish Services. I hardly eve use the Export process directly. The Publish Services do dedicated Exporting and manage the derivative image files without having to import the derivative file into LR for LR to manage a physical file. With a Social Media Publish Service (like FB, Flickr Instagram etc.) the only physical file that is retained is on the Publish Service destination server and none is needed in a local file folder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top