# Exporting from Lightroom 5



## angster (Aug 1, 2013)

Hello,
this is my first post so of course i am new to Light room. after woking on a raw in lightroom i tried to export to a desktop folder as a tif. when I opened the new tif it was my pic. without all the adjustments i made.

Do I have to consolidate the work I have done on the raw to import it?

Thank you,
angster


----------



## clee01l (Aug 1, 2013)

Angster, welcome to our forum.  let me describe what needs to be done and you can then give some details on what you did and where you might have deviated from the steps described below:

Import Raw files into LR (Sounds like you are OK with this point.
Lightroom stores Metadata from the RAW file header (EXIF) and the folder location that you chose to store the master copy of the image in the Lightroom catalog. (This catalog is the *.lrcat file that you created initially on opening LR for the first time)

For each image registered in the catalog, you make additions to the metadata (Titles, captions and keywords) and Develop adjustments.  These are also stored in the catalog.
To create a derivative image that merges the develop adjustments, additional metadata with the master original RAW image, you need to define the target parameters in the Export dialog and then hit the Export button.
If the Export parameters that you have defined create a TIFF in a folder on the Desktop, then that is where LR will write the derivative TIFF file.

If it would help, you can take a screen shot of your Export Dialog so that I can understand what parameters you used.  
There is a parameter on the Export dialog to add the Exported image to the catalog if you want both the master and the derivative in the catalog.  Normally is it not necessary to maintain a permanent copy of the adjusted derivative on your computer or in LR because the target for this output file is a website online, email, a Slideshow or a paper print. You can always regenerate the derivative from the original and the adjustments in the LR catalog.


----------



## Macman (Aug 17, 2013)

I am new and using LR4........when exporting Jpegs I can't stop PS opening up automatically and it's a real pain...how do I do it please?


----------



## clee01l (Aug 17, 2013)

Welcome to the forum. I hope I don't scare you off like I did the previous poster 

In the Export dialog for your JPEGs, the last section is labeled Post Processing.   You probably need to change the dropdown labeled "After Export" to {Do Nothing}.  It probably now has {Open in Adobe Photoshop...}


----------



## Macman (Aug 18, 2013)

clee01l said:


> Welcome to the forum. I hope I don't scare you off like I did the previous poster
> 
> In the Export dialog for your JPEGs, the last section is labeled Post Processing.   You probably need to change the dropdown labeled "After Export" to {Do Nothing}.  It probably now has {Open in Adobe Photoshop...}




Ha.....that rings a bell somewhere.  It's baffling how programs turn off commands, it never used to do it.  The alternative is that I probably set that up two years ago on LR2 and didn't on 4.....but was sure it had not opened in 4.....I will take a look, THANKS.

one back for all here......when you are cloning, if you go and muck it up a quick retract is to right click while still hovering on the clone circle and a drop menu appears...click on delete...:nod: It disappears in a puff of smoke.


----------



## Macman (Aug 18, 2013)

......one thing though, that's not in the export one photo dialog box, so it's a global preference....where?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 18, 2013)

No, it's not a global preference, but it is in the Export dialog.....as Cletus said, look in the "Post Processing" section of the export dialog, click in the "After Export" box and you should see something like this:




What appears in the list will depend on what other apps you have installed that Lightroom knows about. But for sure Photoshop will be in your list as you have it installed.


----------



## Macman (Aug 19, 2013)

By no means, glad of the help.  The issue is sorted,  I could use some tuition about catalogues, archiving images.  Keeping a lot of images with LR is killing the speed of my mac. snow leopard even.  i've only got 130 images associated with LR and when it's in use it just crawls now.....any ideas?  I could really do with putting small batches into LR, doing the editing and removing, but leaving raw files which can be put back in the LR later if needs be.  I think increasing the ram from 2 to 8 would not necessarily cure the issue.  may not be the right section of the forum to discuss, so pass me on if needs be.



clee01l said:


> Welcome to the forum. I hope I don't scare you off like I did the previous poster
> 
> In the Export dialog for your JPEGs, the last section is labeled Post Processing.   You probably need to change the dropdown labeled "After Export" to {Do Nothing}.  It probably now has {Open in Adobe Photoshop...}


----------



## gregDT (Aug 19, 2013)

130 images really shouldn't be a problem. I'm fairly mercenary with archiving off old images but I currently have about 20,000 pictures in my current active catalogue and I've heard of some people happily running 250k plus. I've a fairly old machine myself so I would look deeper into why you're struggling. Better folk than me might confirm that I'm wrong but the number of images in a catalogue shouldn't be an issue unless your in the many, many thousands of pictures. 

RAM always helps though


----------



## clee01l (Aug 19, 2013)

The catalog can contain hundreds of thousands of images. It is just a database file LR reads from it and LR writes to it. This is the kind of operation that you could do on a smartphone. And in develop, LR only works on one image at a time. However it is probably that one image and the operations performed on it that slow your computer down. LR works best on a multi core CPU with lots of RAM. It also needs lots of free space to use the working storage provided by the OS. Just guessing, if you have an older MBP, you are probably missing the key ingredients for a speedy app.  You may not be able to run LR and a bunch of other apps in the background. 
My dual core SSD retina MBP w/ 8 GB RAM is noticably slower that my quad core iMac w/16GB and 7200rpm conventional HDs.


----------



## Macman (Aug 20, 2013)

Ah.....you run with 8 ram.   May be the answer.  I have 15gb free of a 160 HD and running 2 ram.  I will start out by removing all files to remove HD.  Note the speed increase and upgrade ram if any is detected with LR.  If not it's time for a new mac for LR.  But it is duo core intel, so I really don't understand the problem........anyone know of a simple workflow tutorial for LR?

Thanks for the replies guys.


----------



## Macman (Aug 20, 2013)

On the right lines I think here...read my reply before this.....sorry, but MPB is?


----------



## Macman (Aug 20, 2013)

"pictures" on the mac which houses the LR cat is 9gb size and there is only 150 images in there for LR max.......so it seems we have the issue.  Thanks.  I will have a clear out and report back.  Probably with more ram!!!


----------



## Macman (Aug 20, 2013)

The LR cat it's self is only 3gb.....so that would seem to rule out the actual storage as the issue once and for all.....cheers guys.


----------



## clee01l (Aug 20, 2013)

Macman said:


> On the right lines I think here...read my reply before this.....sorry, but MPB is?


MBP = MacBookPro.

And in spite of what Adobe says about the minimum specs for LR, 2GB of RAM in inadequate for running LR happily. You are going to need to add more RAM if you want any reasonable performance.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 20, 2013)

15gb of hard drive space left isn't giving the operating system a lot of breathing room either.  I'd be looking at moving some of that off into external storage if you can.


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Aug 20, 2013)

Macman said:


> I have 15gb free of a 160 HD and running 2 ram.
> 
> Thanks for the replies guys.



I certainly think this is a major part of your problem. You should always aim to have at least 25% of your hard drive capacity free. i.e. 40gb.


----------



## Macman (Aug 21, 2013)

Victoria Bampton said:


> 15gb of hard drive space left isn't giving the operating system a lot of breathing room either.  I'd be looking at moving some of that off into external storage if you can.



The thought has now risen to the top that accessing the LR images from a ext. HD would introduce a slow response that way.
Is that not going to be an issue?  Or would having 70% of the mac free counter act that and be of more benefit?

It's difficult for any of you or I to know what benefits either way would produce.  Seems to be taking the ram from 2 to 8 and clearing the mac to 70% would be the best guarantee.  Either that or use this opportunity to get the latest mac, with 8 ram and do it all in on go with this mac as an extra storage unit to boot.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 21, 2013)

Go for the fastest external connection you can - I'd bet the extra hard drive space will help a bit, especially as you only have 2GB of RAM, so you're using the hard drive as virtual memory too.  But yes, you'd see a bigger boost from upgrading the whole machine.  If I remember correctly, it's a long time since they shipped with 2GB.


----------



## Macman (Aug 22, 2013)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Go for the fastest external connection you can - I'd bet the extra hard drive space will help a bit, especially as you only have 2GB of RAM, so you're using the hard drive as virtual memory too.  But yes, you'd see a bigger boost from upgrading the whole machine.  If I remember correctly, it's a long time since they shipped with 2GB.




Update........  I have freed the mac to 50%.  This has made it bearable on speed, about 50% faster and loading, but the main issue is magnification and final rendering, so there is some way to go.....but it proves what has been suggested.  About an updated machine: I don't necessarily hold with that, not so far as processor speed because the increase isn't much and it's relative to HD size.  The comment about HD being used as virtual ram looks true.

I have 8gb ram on order, this coupled with even more space clearing should bring it up to a workable speed.

just what is the best external connection speed and device?  I have an external HD of a normal kind which I don't really utilise as I suspect it slows the computer whilst connected.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 22, 2013)

Which machine do you have?  All we know at the moment is you have 2GB of RAM.  The connections on your machine will determine which external drive options you have.


----------



## Macman (Aug 22, 2013)

Update to the update!!!!    Excellent!!!!   Connected ext HD.  This is a 500gb with 300 free space.  Copied and transferred  a very slow opening raf file and imported from the ext. HD to LR 4.  Loading was faster than from HD by miles and 1:1 magnification was rendered sharp in 1 sec. Which is more than acceptable.  £58 on more ram is by no means a waste as I build on from here....I will now be able to use PS with LR open I guess.

All the help much appreciated......a bit back into the forum....if anyone wants to see how an expert edits a photo file then take the much reduced offer by Damien Lovegrove and buy his LR training DVD....it's not about how to use LR, you are expected to know.....but more about how to use the develop module correctly and easily.  Amazing and a steal with the current discount at a tender....be quick


----------



## Macman (Aug 22, 2013)

Mac mini intel 2009 core duo.  But as I've now posted, get it set up correctly and it's more than up to the job.....but the ram will help multi tasking and as the ext. HD fills I would imagine.  The ext. HD is a western home 500gb and connected via FireWire....the propellor symbol........as reported, working very as described so far.....the extra ram will guard the future use.


----------



## Macman (Aug 22, 2013)

OK......two questions......firstly, why do new posts always appear at the bottom of the string in these types of forums?
A pain having to keep scrolling down.

ok...can anyone explain why having done all the clear out of the mac and set up the ext. HD and found files from the HD are super fast enough....all the files which are still located on the mac are still slow.  Better, but are a snails pace compared to the ext. HD....and I've checked by using the same files duplicated, with a different file name obviously.
the mac hd is cleared by 50%
i find that a bit odd....since the mac is doing all the work plus the files are stored on it too I can see hope files on the mac (may) load slower.....but but 15 - 20 seconds to get up to 1:1 mag. ????   Anyone any ideas?  That a normal thing?


----------



## Macman (Aug 22, 2013)

Of course, this now begs the question of the files I have on the mac HD and trying to move them to the ext. HD so they will work faster......moving issues...help!
Also, I find that once the slow image is loaded it will get remember and it speeds up until another image is selected....so using cashe or virtual is suspect?


----------



## angster (Aug 1, 2013)

Hello,
this is my first post so of course i am new to Light room. after woking on a raw in lightroom i tried to export to a desktop folder as a tif. when I opened the new tif it was my pic. without all the adjustments i made.

Do I have to consolidate the work I have done on the raw to import it?

Thank you,
angster


----------



## clee01l (Aug 22, 2013)

Operating systems have two functions that require free space on your local HD. One is for a swap file (virtual RAM). When applications call for more RAM than the system has available, the system pages out idle portions of RAM to a swap file so that there is RAM available for the app needing it. The more RAM that you have initially, the less swapping required. And that means better performance. If your computer never had to access the HD it would be blazingly fast. 
The other function inherent in operating systems is working storage. Programs like LR (and most others) make use of this working storage to create temporary intermediate files. So,you need free space to accommodate these temporary files. Most recommend about 25% of your primary HD. In reality with terabyte sized HDs, 25% is an enormous waste. But you shouldn't at all times keep 30-50 GB free.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Aug 22, 2013)

Macman said:


> OK......two questions......firstly, why do new posts always appear at the bottom of the string in these types of forums?
> A pain having to keep scrolling down.



Personally, I find it far more logical to read a thread top down rather than bottom up, especially when I look at a new thread that might already have several posts. Makes far more sense to me....

But, the forum does provide tools to ease your frustration. Look at this screenshot of part of the "Today's Posts" list:




At a glance I can see those threads which have new posts that I've not yet reviewed, i.e. the thread title is in bold.

When there are such threads with new posts that I haven't yet seen, in front of the thread title you'll see a small icon with two downward pointing arrows on a blue circle (shown in the red box in my screenshot).....click on that icon and you'll be taken to that first new/unread post in the thread.

All threads, not just those with unseen content, also have a similar icon to the right of the username in the "Last post" box (shown in the black box in my screenshot). Click on that icon and you'll be taken to the last post in the thread.


----------



## Macman (Aug 23, 2013)

Hi,

Most helpful, as you've all been.....Cheers.


----------



## Macman (Aug 25, 2013)

OK......hope you all can follow this.... 

I installed 8gb of ram.  Has made a big speed difference in the machine as a whole.

LR - image importing, loading actions and then rendering actions to make image sharp have gone from a typical raw file from a XPRO 1  4xxx X 3xxx resolution of often 20 secs, now down to 5/7 secs to image load and 2/3 secs to render and make sharp.  All of this in the develop module.

I still find that with a 1:1 or 1:2 magnification set, when cursor selecting in the navigator or click image and drag, there is delay while the image becomes sharp.

I have sensitive eyes, so I don't like a delay of this kind, but at least it's a manageable delay and the actions of editing are smooth and not clunky anymore.

QUESTION:

Based on all of this, is is possible to remove this delay with a latest machine?  Or would this take a £1000 imac to achieve?

What are your experiences?   I must admit, moving the navigator around to seek new parts on the image to work on and have this however small delay is still a nuisance.

Is this as good LR gets?


----------



## clee01l (Aug 25, 2013)

> Is this as good LR gets?


You could probably tweak things with more cores and a fasrer processor, even getting to 16GB would help...some. Since LR4 was introduced this lag between clicking on an full size image and when a sharp image finally appears has been an issue and Adobe have done several things to attempt to improve user experience.  Besides anticipating which image you will click on next and building it it the background, I don't think thers is anything significant that cane be done with the present way PV2012 is coded. It only gets more pronounced when you start dealing with state of the are pixels densities (24-36mp)


----------



## frozenframe (Aug 25, 2013)

Just to throw my .02 cents in, I was using a PC/Laptop, running Vista, Intel Dual Core T2370 @1.73Ghz. As long as I kept all my photos on an external HDD (1TB), LR4.4 would run ok, slow but ok. Most of the time there was a significant delay when zooming in on images, and using some of the local enhancements, like the brush, cloning or spot. Finally I decided it was time to upgrade my system, so I purchased a new desktop, and it really, really, really helped improve the speed in using LR. I now use LR5, on a Windows 8, intel i7 (8 virtual cores, 4-actual), with 16GB RAM, and 1TB internal HDD. I have 3 External HDD connected to it, which is where all my photos, videos, and backups reside. 

Editing RAW files is very taxing on computer resources, and LR is a resource hog. So being able to use a powerful computer is _almost_ required, unless you're willing to tolerate things being real slow.


----------



## Macman (Aug 26, 2013)

clee01l said:


> You could probably tweak things with more cores and a fasrer processor, even getting to 16GB would help...some. Since LR4 was introduced this lag between clicking on an full size image and when a sharp image finally appears has been an issue and Adobe have done several things to attempt to improve user experience.  Besides anticipating which image you will click on next and building it it the background, I don't think thers is anything significant that cane be done with the present way PV2012 is coded. It only gets more pronounced when you start dealing with state of the are pixels densities (24-36mp)



I rather suspected the case, though did not know the background about the coding and adobe....typical of them.  My feelings are that LR should have been split from the cataloguing and a stand alone editor made as an alternative.  The problem would then disappear.
The image editing is the only reason to use LR in my opinion and the only reason I put up with it.
It is without equal by some distance.

am so pleased to have joined this forum and grateful for the shared advice and help, in particular to you Clee.  The last two replies show that there is not much to do.  It's not bad at all the position I am in now and would have took it if asked two weeks ago, so can't complain.  Cheers all.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 26, 2013)

No, the problem wouldn't disappear if you removed the cataloguing.  PV2012 is simply doing much more complex calculations than PV2010.  The result is better, but as with everything, that comes with a trade-off - you choose quality or performance.  If you choose quality, then a faster processor can at least help speed up those complex calculations.  They've switched round the loading order so that the basic sliders are available more quickly using lower resolution data, but processing the full resolution data 'properly' still takes time.


----------



## angster (Aug 26, 2013)

*Thank you Cletus, I have solved this problem. Your post wound up in my trash folder.*



clee01l said:


> Angster, welcome to our forum.  let me describe what needs to be done and you can then give some details on what you did and where you might have deviated from the steps described below:
> 
> Import Raw files into LR (Sounds like you are OK with this point.
> Lightroom stores Metadata from the RAW file header (EXIF) and the folder location that you chose to store the master copy of the image in the Lightroom catalog. (This catalog is the *.lrcat file that you created initially on opening LR for the first time)
> ...



Thank you Cletus. read the title


----------

