Exporting with "no crop"?

[dorth999]

I wanted to provide a friend a copy of a shoot but minus the 5x7 cropping. Certainly I could create virtual copies and then reset the cropping on them, then export those. However, I thought that maybe it would be simpler to just

1. select the photos in the Library/Grid mode
2. change the "Crop Ratio" to "Original" in the Quick Develop module
3. Export,
4. Now click "Undo" to restore the cropping

I tried it out on a small set of test images and it worked mostly as expected. However, when you toss in the "Export" step, LR maintains a unique "Undo" for every picture which was exported, so a single "undo" doesn't work quite the same as I expected it would. I didn't think it was a big deal - I'd just click "undo" until the cropping returned. Every time I pressed ^Z it said "Undo Save History State for Image". Well, if you select more than 100 photos, I think I ran out of "undo"s! There was brief panic that I had lost the crops, but since I backup the catalog pretty much every time I exit, I was covered.

This isn't something I really do all that often, but often enough that I figured there would be an easier way.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Dave O

 

[jimburgess]

After reading through the steps you have described the "easier way" is to use virtual copies, as you mentioned. A few mouse clicks on the selected set of photos you want to export is all it would take.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Hi Dave, welcome to the forum!

I think I'd go with the virtual copies option too. I've run into that Save History State for Image too, and you're right that it's recording the Export state (and yes, that's a bug, feel free to make some noise on the Official Feature Request/Bug Report Forum) so VC's would avoid it.

 

[clee01l]

... You're right that it's recording the Export state (and yes, that's a bug...)

Oh I hope not. Adding the Export event to the history is the best improvement that Adobe has made to LR export functions. With that I can find an exported derivative and determine exactly what adjustments have been made to an image to duplicate the derivative or to use as a take-off point for additional adjustments/ new crops etc.

If I were the OP, I would not return to a previous development state unless I needed to make additional adjustments or a new derivative that required that state.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Adding the Export event is not a bug. Recording it as the last undoable step is though. It also happens if you have an export running in the background while you're working on other things, which makes it a lot more problematic.

 

[sldghamr]

I know this is an "ancient" post, just curious if any new solutions to this have surfaced? For my primary purpose I'm wanting to export "archive" JPEGs and for those I'd want to export at original full image and remove vignetting if applied.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Hi sldghamr, welcome to the forum!

I thought the undo part of the bug got fixed years ago - are you still seeing it?

 

[sldghamr]

I apologize, I was so vague with my question. The bug is fixed, what I'm looking for is a more automated solution to export a selected group of photos - having LR reset the crop to "nothing", and reset certain settings (mainly vignetting) to default values, export, and return to the values they were. Another way to state it (I don't think there's a way to do this already in v6??) make copies, reset the cropping of those copies, export the copies, delete the copies. I've argued with myself over "if you lost all your data except a focused, minimal copy of 'the best of the best' on some random media", wouldn't I most likely rather have the full image to work with, in a worst-case scenario?

 

[Victoria Bampton]

FWIW, I think you'd be better focusing that arguing time on making sure you've got good backups. A copy of the originals plus a copy of the catalog would avoid you losing anything at all.

 

[sldghamr]

I've got backups covered, issue is they are RAW files, I also want JPEG or TIFF files for an additional, more "universal" backup - but that requires exporting and I believe I would rather have the un-cropped version exported.

 

[Dan Marchant]

I've got backups covered, issue is they are RAW files, I also want JPEG or TIFF files for an additional, more "universal" backup - but that requires exporting and I believe I would rather have the un-cropped version exported.

Sorry but can you explain what exactly the "issue" is with having a backup of your RAW files? or how a JPG/TIFF backup would be more "universal"? What is it you believe you can you do with JPG/TIFF backup that you can't do better with the RAW file backup?

If you have a backup of the RAW + your LR catalog (and your system fails) you can copy that backup onto your restored system. That gives you....
1. A copy of the unprocessed RAW files,
2. (via the catalog) a copy of all your edited images,
3. The ability to create a virtual copy of any edited RAW and reset it back to default settings (while still keeping the edited version) and then edit it in any way you want,
4. The ability to create a TIFF file for printing or further processing in Photoshop,
5. The ability to export a JPG for posting to the web or printing,

If you have a backup of exported TIFF files that gives you
1. Copies of that edited TIFF with edits baked in. If the profile used was monochrome that TIFF is now monochrome. It can't be reset (like the RAW could).
2. Yes you can make a virtual copy and do further edits but you can't reset it,
3. The ability to export a JPG for posting to the web or printing,

If you have a backup of exported JPG files that gives you
1. The same as for TIFF but a lot less editable.

 

[sldghamr]

Because the likelihood of any given [current] camera's RAW format being readable with xyz photo app 10-20 years from now cannot be assumed. The catalog is only good as long as a person stays with a given app, after that you're talking migration i.e. Lightroom to CaptureOne. I'm talking about *archival*; ensuring my images can be viewed 20-50 years from now on a wide variety of devices.

 

[Dan Marchant]

Because the likelihood of any given [current] camera's RAW format being readable with xyz photo app 10-20 years from now cannot be assumed.

This argument is often mentioned as a reason to convert original RAW files to DNG except that it make no sense at all. You're proposing to spend 10 years converting files on the off chance that the original files cease to be supported.... without knowing if the format your converting to will be supported. It is just as likely that 5 years from now TIFF+ will be invented, with all the data of a TIFF in a super compressed format and 20 years from now none of the software out there will read your TIFF/JPG files.

The time to convert the RAW files is when there is actually a real need (when companies actually start to drop support for RAW).... at which point you can convert them to whatever is the best file type at that time.

 

[sldghamr]

My 2 cents on DNG; it's a great idea in theory (and I really wish it could deliver) but I think it has yet to be executed in a way that can deliver on enough of its' promises to make it worth the effort. And it's probably as much the camera makers' faults as anyone's.

 

[clee01l]

The time to convert the RAW files is when there is actually a real need (when companies actually start to drop support for RAW).... at which point you can convert them to whatever is the best file type at that time.

This is the best summary statement of when or IF you need to convert. AFAIK no Image development app has ever announced that they were dropping support for any legacy RAW or RGB format.
If like Rip Van Winkle you should fall asleep for 20 years and miss your window of opportunity, it probably was not that important.

 

[PhilBurton]

My 2 cents on DNG; it's a great idea in theory (and I really wish it could deliver) but I think it has yet to be executed in a way that can deliver on enough of its' promises to make it worth the effort. And it's probably as much the camera makers' faults as anyone's.

Agreed. To me, the real issue is that DNG doesn't seem to have the same left of support as Canon and Nikon proprietary formats. If my camera was not Canon, Nikon, and maybe Sony, then I would be a lot more supportive.