Lightroom Desktop: Additional options needed when exporting

  • 191
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 weeks ago
  • Implemented
  • (Edited)
I ask because when you export in Lightroom CC, called "save to," the only parameter you can adjust is the pixels. Nothing else that I can see. In other versions of Lightroom you get a whole bunch of parameters to adjust, including DPI. Clients specify sometimes the settings that they want. Or another possibility is that I'm doing it wrong, and if so, could someone let me know how to export and adjust things like DPI.
Photo of Daniel Krieger

Daniel Krieger

  • 7 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 191
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5482 Posts
  • 2188 Reply Likes
Right now it's just a version 1.0 product, so yes, it will probably be best suited to hobbyists at this stage. You're not missing those settings. You probably need to stick with Classic for now.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5482 Posts
  • 2188 Reply Likes
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!
Photo of Edmund Gall

Edmund Gall

  • 139 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
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...
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 763 Posts
  • 193 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of James Hess

James Hess

  • 259 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
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.
Photo of junior

junior

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Would be really nice thats all im missing to be fully happy with lightroom cc everything else is fine ‘ please make it happen
Photo of ALEXANDER KAUFENSTEIN

ALEXANDER KAUFENSTEIN

  • 4 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I just thought the same.... maybe we need to wait until Lightroom CC 7 to get a professional cloud based LR... *it sucks*
Photo of yghguy

yghguy

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Are they still printable when saved at “normal size”
Photo of Alberto Neto

Alberto Neto

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
After the last update I don't know how to export as a TIFF image.
Photo of Matt Willingham

Matt Willingham

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
Just bought LR CC without realizing it isn't Lightroom. Frustrated by the limitations, especially around exporting images. Please improve ASAP!
Photo of michael scribner

michael scribner

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Agree, what a let down.
Photo of anssik

anssik

  • 158 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
"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.
Photo of Sebastian Hellvik Holst

Sebastian Hellvik Holst

  • 1 Post
  • 4 Reply Likes
Yeah, this is extremely limited. It is like having a big block V8 with a straw for an exhaust...
Photo of NullMind

NullMind

  • 1 Post
  • 7 Reply Likes
What a letdown, we really need a proper export setting like we had in the 'classic' version ... 
Photo of Andrea G

Andrea G

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
Agree! Adobe please make it happen :)
Photo of Anne

Anne

  • 2 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
No kidding.  This is ridiculous - moving to "new" and then take away important features.
Photo of steve reid

steve reid

  • 45 Posts
  • 25 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled More save export options.

We need more export / save options. And same in iOS version.
Currently only options are small (1048). Size , long edge and full. For jpgs output.
Plus importantly we need control for the compression/ quality and colour space to add Adobe RGB, as the jpgs are always sRGB., with some compression.
So I can give my clients full quality and colour space , in any size.

However , I noticed we can export to open in Photoshop . This opens a 16bit Adobe TGB TIFF in PS.
So there’s must be some decent output functionally and options behind the hood .

I’d be quite happy with a 8bit and 16bit TIFF (adobe RGB) options to save to be addded in to the save menu options.
Photo of Victor Porof

Victor Porof

  • 55 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Can’t export in a different format other than JPEG.

It seems that Lightroom mobile and CC desktop (new) can’t export to anything better than a lossy 8bit jpeg. This seems insane to me, especially for more advanced workflows which involve editing in other applications.

My usecase: initial RAW adjustments in Lr mobile, then continue working in Affinity Photo on an iPad. Currently this transfer to another application is lossy.

But no matter what other third party application I’d choose, or even if I just wanted to simply save an image, something better than JPEG is definitely required in many situations. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this limitation.
Photo of Teresa Beasley

Teresa Beasley

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
When we are paying for Adobe Lightroom, we should not need a workaround. It’s ridiculous that Adobe made this decision.
Photo of Lars D. Terkelsen

Lars D. Terkelsen

  • 12 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Can we please have export as tiff?Please?
Thanks
Photo of Victor Porof

Victor Porof

  • 55 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
Exporting as tiff would be everything I would need as well, but at least with customizable bit depth. 16bit would be nice.
Photo of Arno Bajon

Arno Bajon

  • 2 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Ok, guys...6 month and no changes to the exporting feature. I cancel my subscription and go to Luminar. Sorry Adobe, but you clearly do not see what a fast upgrade cycle is. The last changes made to Lightroom CC have been marginal and only to do with your auto filters...get the basics right before being fancy.
Photo of Sascha C.

Sascha C.

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
I can't believe that this FR has only 35 votes. There are so less LRCC users out there? Or are they happy with the limited options here? I do not understand why Adobe did not implement such a basic feature.
Photo of Victor Porof

Victor Porof

  • 55 Posts
  • 36 Reply Likes
Contrary to what Adobe probably assumes, most users don't visit these forums at all. I doubt that the vast majority even cares about expressing their satisfaction or dissatisfaction in a forum like this one at all. They're angry and talk about it with their friends or just switch to a different product.

Getting useful feedback from your users is hard. But Adobe is worse at doing it that many other companies (perhaps intentionally).

If they added a more streamlined way for people to request for features (like an obvious button in the application's UI), the signal would increase dramatically... along with the noise.
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5270 Posts
  • 2069 Reply Likes
> Contrary to what Adobe probably assumes, most users don't visit these forums at all.

Adobe knows only a small number of their users visits the forum, but the percentage of votes compared to other requests still provides useful feedback, rather than focusing on the actual number of votes. In my experience, the percentages are fairly accurate when compared against the feedback I hear from a wide range of sources. 
Photo of Jamie Alquiza

Jamie Alquiza

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Came here solely with the hope that the export limitations are known and other people care. Of all possible features, the lack of control on export types/quality is the most crippling.
(Edited)
Photo of Alessandro Landra

Alessandro Landra

  • 5 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Export TIFF from Lightroom CC.

I find very annoying that I cannot export photos in TIFF format from Lightroom CC after one year or more it has been released, and I am still paying for it. Am I supposed to use JPEG on other editing software that are part of my workflow? Isn't it time to add export settings? It looks like a bad joke to photographers that prioritize uncompressed format.
Thank you
Photo of Lars D. Terkelsen

Lars D. Terkelsen

  • 12 Posts
  • 16 Reply Likes
Yup. So much for having LR mobile being a professional tool. :-(
Photo of Floris van Eck

Floris van Eck

  • 53 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Prioritize this please, exporting TIFF files at some point is an essential part of most people's photography workflow as well as being able to set export parameters like quality, resolution etc. I would kill for Capture One style processing recipes.