Lightroom Desktop: Additional options needed when exporting

I wish I knew it was the 'non-pro' version before buying it and spending hours trying to set it up

Check my Lightroom Queen blog first next time Daniel. Everything you need to know is on there.

LR is the only software you need to check on other web site before you buy to understand what it is able to do or not. 1 year after, we are waiting export option. Or dean and drop or etc etc

Victoria it's been almost two years since the release of Lr CC, and no export options have been added so far... I had to print a photo, and had to export the raw, import it in APPLE PHOTOS (yes! damn), edit it again, and export in TIFF 16 bit format. I've been paying for almost two years now for a software that doesn't allow me to do simple exports for printing. You guys are being lazy. Lazy with our money!

I had Lightroom Classic at work and I had no idea this version was not identical. I am unable to do the work I need to do in editing batches of photos for uploading to a website.

Lightroom Classic and Lightroom Desktop are NOT the same program. Lightroom Desktop is the cloud-based Lightroom, and it doesn't have all the features that you are accustomed to using in Lightroom Classic. If you can adapt to using the "new" Lightroom then it might be the program to consider. Otherwise, you might want to install Lightroom Classic instead.

Absolutely. That is not explained at purchase time! I was disappointed to realize the export function was not included. I need to export, change from 300 to 72, and resize images to fit on a website. I will have to adjust my subscription.

> I need to export, change from 300 to 72, and resize images to fit on a website

Just to clarify, you can already do that in the Cloudy app. You set the size in pixel dimensions, so 300 vs 72 makes no difference to the result.

The save function gives me the long side custom option, but doesn’t include the rename and other functions from the original Lightroom. I’ll play with it some more, but why is it different? I miss the original.

It's different because it's still a baby. The cloud-based desktop versions aren't even 2 years old yet, whereas Classic is coming up for 13. This is a very valid feature request, and I'm certain it will be added sooner than later, but there's a lot of feature requests and they all take time. 

What I meant to ask is why did Adobe reinvent the wheel? What advantages, if any, are there with the cloud-based Lightroom?

To lock you in with a monthly subscription. Smart move from Adobe. And the only way to justify it, is to provide some cloud features. Even full cloud features, which makes transition to another DAM even more difficult.

They could have kept LR classic and add a cloud part, but decided to start from scratch, targeting smartphone users. LR cloud is totally not oriented towards photographers, when compared to classic.

Plus the fact you are beta testing the software. "ship first, fix later"

> What advantages, if any, are there with the cloud-based Lightroom?

The biggest advantage is access to your photos from any device, so you can shoot on your phone, and the photo's are automatically available on your desktop when you get to work, then you can sort through them on your iPad on the train home, and view them on your Apple TV over dinner, etc.

Cloud computing also allows them to do clever artificial intelligence stuff, like allowing you to search for specific photos without needing to organize or keyword them.

They're also working on more cloud connected workflows, like being able to share web galleries, allow other people to send their own photos to your albums for you to organize (for example, if everyone's at a family event and you're in charge of collecting everyone's photos).

It's still early days, so it's still developing. Classic remains focused on being a powerful single-desktop application.

Drawing on Antoine's comments, you might consider Classic as being for more traditional photographers, whereas Cloudy is focused more on the next generation of photographers. 

“...the next generation of photographers.” From the comments I have read that have been posted for more than two years, I am not alone in wondering why this version of Lightroom could not have offered the same functionality as the previous version while still allowing for all these cloud and sharing advantages you mention.

You're certainly not alone in that thought Teresa, but they're building the new app from the ground up using modern code, and that simply takes time. On the up side, that also means fewer bugs!

It's because they're two different applications. The fully-cloud-based LR CC app was built from the ground up and released initially with a subset of the features of the more mature LR Classic app. It was not a straight copy-and-paste job, with just some code thrown in to enable the links to the cloud. The strategy was to get something out that can satisfy many consumers/hobbyists who use their mobile devices to capture images, do light processing and share some of them mostly to social media (plus backup photos to the cloud), while gradually adding more of the other features the pros would need to move away from LR Classic (full asset management, more exporting options, proper colour-managed workflow) and reduce the need for relying on laptops out in the field.

I know it can be frustrating to users who expect them to be the same, but to achieve that in the incredibly short time-frame required to meet that expectation (i.e. within months), the cost of the app would've been quite prohibitive. It's like asking why a builder, who's built a large house over the course of years, can't make a copy of it within months for the same price, albeit with a different foundation and more modern look/feel. The average user has no idea how complex Classic is: a full-fledged cloud-based version of it built from the ground up cannot be built in that short timeframe without increasing the costs and risks of missing/fixing bugs.

Perhaps Adobe could've done a better job of making customers aware of this, but I won't put any blame on the developers: IMO (with the little bit I know of IT & software development), they're doing an admirable job getting new features and bug fixes out several times a year...

Edmund, no one would ever blame any dev. They're doing their job with the tools and time they have.

But in the end -and that's what matters- Adobe ends up selling two software: the "old" one with poorly implemented sync features, few updates and at increased price; and the second, "new" one which does not seems to meet the requirements.

I believe your concept "old" and "new" is a little misleading. Both versions of Lightroom are being updated continually. It's just that the cloud version is new from the ground up, and providing conformity across multiple platforms (computers, tablets, phones, etc.) requires a lot of careful forethought and planning that I don't think a lot of us even take the time to consider.

Would be really nice thats all im missing to be fully happy with lightroom cc everything else is fine ‘ please make it happen

It'll gain features quickly. Which features get added first will largely depend on feedback here, so feel free to add "ideas" for your most-needed features. 

So you mean it's not suffiicient to post it under "question" and should also add the same post under the "ideas" heading?

No, I can convert this to idea. I just meant any other missing features that prevent it from being suitable for your workflow.

Great and thank you much for your feedback! Hopefully a loud chorus of users will quickly convince the designers that this is an essential feature because telling a client, "Sorry, but I can't customize DPI settings, just pixels and nothing else" might not cut it for some photographers...

Mmmh, just trying to use Lightroom CC for some simple editing...made some major adjustment in my processing from Lightroom classic...but major flaw I cannot get around starts at the export. I need to lower the quality of jpegs and retain the resolution. Just to save file size. This is still not possible...I understand something different under gaining features quickly.

It will gain it so quickly that 1 year later we are still here...no words

What is up with not being able to export files anymore from LR CC????  That has always been a feature I used a lot to order prints from my photo lab.

You can still export photos, just in Lightroom CC (the new baby cloudy one) it's called Save To.

Are they still printable when saved at “normal size”

After the last update I don't know how to export as a TIFF image.

Just bought LR CC without realizing it isn't Lightroom. Frustrated by the limitations, especially around exporting images. Please improve ASAP!

Just bought LR CC without realizing it isn't Lightroom. Frustrated by the limitations, especially around exporting images. Please improve ASAP!

Agree, what a let down.

"It'll gain features quickly", she said. That's TWO YEARS ago, for a feature as essential as exporting with custom settings applied.

"Which features get added first will largely depend on feedback here, so feel free to add "ideas" for your most-needed features.

I think I made the right decision to stick with LR for Professionals, aka LR Classic. It would have been a long two years to wait for all this nonsense.

"It'll gain features quickly", she said. That's TWO YEARS ago, for a feature as essential as exporting with custom settings applied.

"Which features get added first will largely depend on feedback here, so feel free to add "ideas" for your most-needed features.

I think I made the right decision to stick with LR for Professionals, aka LR Classic. It would have been a long two years to wait for all this nonsense.

Agree! Adobe please make it happen :)

No kidding.  This is ridiculous - moving to "new" and then take away important features.

When we are paying for Adobe Lightroom, we should not need a workaround. It’s ridiculous that Adobe made this decision.

It is extremely frustrating to be unable to change the file name, both within LR and as an export.  I identify photos and it is all lost  on export, requiring a lot of extra work.

Try this work around if using Apple IOS.
Download the Workflow app on the App Store.

Create your own extension workflow that batch renames. Set the file name of your choice in the workflow app.

Now you have two choices, you can either export all the images you want into a folder on your iPad, sort them in date order at the top filter, then run your workflow over them to rename all, or on export in lightroom mobile, select the extension you made on export and it will batch rename as it exports to folder of choice.

I use workflow, it’s a fantastic tool. I can batch rename and resize at the same time on export in lightroom mobile with it. There is a ton of stuff you can do with it.

Is workflow able to create smart folder or drag and drop?

Thanks for your input, Tony. I've merged your post with a previous thread on this subject so your vote will be added to the rest.

Rick, you’ve merged a topic specifically referring to the mobile product into a desktop product thread.

I offer more examples of this repeated behavior here: https://feedback.photoshop.com/photos...

Given that Adobe seems to be putting a lot of weight on where exactly features are requested when prioritizing them, perhaps you can elaborate into where users should ask for feedback for a specific platform, and why mobile is treated as a second class citizen given how topics are merged and how thread comments are interpreted?

Thanks for the idea, Paul. I've merged your post with a previous thread so your vote will be added to the rest.

Thanks for the input, Randy. Don't forget to check the "vote" box at the top of the page.

Hi Victor,

Adobe has no interest in preventing you from using your images in any software you please. The "Edit in Photoshop" function is there to make it more convenient to edit and save your changes in Lightroom. You can already export the original file and open it in any other compatible program. No matter what software you like to use, we are happy that you choose to include ours in that workflow. 

Other export options are under consideration but, as you know, there are a lot of feature requests to work on and they are prioritized by popularity. Where this one is in that list I can't say but if the idea gains enough support you could likely expect to see it in a future release. 

Thanks again for your input.

Rick

You are right, Export the original is possible. But: Then I don't need Lightroom, the original is already on my SD Card. Since most tools I know do not (fully) interpret the XMP File that is exported with the original, the way to use Lightroom as a tool between makes no sense.