Comments on: Working with Virtual Copies in Lightroom

By: barbara

barbara — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:51:09 +0000

Kendra, the first option that comes to my mind is to tag your copies with any of the available filters, color, stars, numbers. And then filter by that, and select all.

For example, once I’ve created my VC’s and put them in a collection, I then go through and tag the very best as red (keystroke 6), and the second best as yellow (keystroke) 7. Then I can filter the collection for just reds and select all to export those.

You could do the same with your 2nd copies, or 3rd copies.

Just a thought.

By: Kendra

Kendra — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:41:26 +0000

If I make several copies of each image to edit in a different style, is there a way to select every 2nd copy or 3rd copy, etc. of each image?

By: barbara

barbara — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:21:12 +0000

My personal preference is to always move my VCs into a collection to do edits and create slideshows and export and such. And as I mentioned in a previous post, because I have set the View Options to label the image with the copy number, I always know that I am working on a copy.

In terms of filters, I have found that in LR3 the Library filters default to off, which annoys me and I haven’t yet found a way to change the default to on. Can anybody help with that?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:47:57 +0000

Barbara – having upgraded to LR3 some time ago I have been struggling all afternoon to try and find out why when working with a collection the VCs are not visible, which is really annoying. I then discover that they are visible in the folder and that i can move the copies to the collection. Most odd. So I can now edit a copy as originally could in LR2. All the filters are turned off in Library grid.

By: barbara

barbara — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:02:58 +0000

Yes, you’re right. the sequencing only allows for numbers. sorry ’bout that, i hadn’t read your original post thoroughly enough i guess! Are you exporting more than one copy of each image? If yes, I am not sure what to suggest. If not, LR does not append the copy number to the original filename when you export.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:39:09 +0000

Thanks Barbara, I see the section with the choices, but none of them look like letters, they are all serial numbers. I want to be able to save a virtual copy of CR-1 as CR-1 A instead of CR-1-1. Seems a small difference but easier for the clients to read

By: barbara

barbara — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:23:33 +0000

Hi Carrie, there is a REALLY easy way to do what you want to do. When you have clicked Export, you will get an export dialogue box. After you’ve chosen your Export Location, see the File Naming section. Put a check in the Rename To checkbox, then use the dropdown to make your naming preferences. there are lots of naming choices, and it’s really easy!

By: Carrie

Carrie — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:55:50 +0000

Is there a way to change the way LR names the virtual copies when I export? I number my files in the file name, so the original would be CR-1, and the virtual copy with edits would be CR-1-2, which is a little confusing to read the whole file name….can I change it so it names it letters instead of 1, 2, 3?

By: Helen Bradley

Helen Bradley — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:58:41 +0000

@barry there is no reason not to edit the original image. Some folks like to take an image two ways, to black and white and say colour so they like to have two versions of the image. I will often use Virtual Copies when I am taking a very close crop from an image but I’d like the full size image to still be available. While I could get back to the original it’s easier to ‘see’ it in the filmstrip if it is actually there. It’s a matter of personal preference and how you typically perform your workflow and what you do with your images.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:33:24 +0000

Is there any harm in just doing the edits on your original file if I don’t need to compare two different sets of edits? I mean in DNG I can always reset the edits so I still have the original untouched image right? or am I missing something?