When I make virtual copies....

When I make virtual copies (PC) the virtual copy puts itself at the end of my filmstrip sometimes and sometimes it puts the virtual copy directly next to the original.
I want the virtual copy to be placed next to the original all of the time.
How can I make this happen and what do I do when the virtual copy decides to place itself at the end?
Thanks.

I have noticed myself on one occasion that lightroom did not adhere to the specified sort order in Library after creating a virtual copy. Shutting down and restarting LR resolved the issue. I was not able to reproduce the problem though.
Beat Gossweiler
Switzerland

Similar Messages

  • LR4 won't make virtual copies

    I installed LR4.4 and now it won't create virtual copies. It says it did but none show up. The show badges is still checked in view options.

    Thank you Jim. I clicked on smart collection and then clicked it off and went to a different collection and it seems to be okay now.
    Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:21:36 -0700
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: LR4 won't make virtual copies
        Re: LR4 won't make virtual copies
        created by jim01403 in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion
    Make sure you have filters turned off and/or make sure you're not operating out of a smart collection which excludes VCs.
         Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5212672#5212672
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5212672#5212672
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/5212672#5212672. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
         Start a new discussion in Photoshop Lightroom by email or at Adobe Community
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

  • I produce church bulletins and the format that I use shows everything is in black except my front and inside cover. When I make copies I am charged for all color. What can I do to correct this?

    Our church just leased a copier and we are charged by the page, either color or black ink. My bulletin has color on the cover and inside cover but all the text on the inside pages are in black. When I make the copies the copier
    charges me for all color pages. It is getting expensive. Any suggestions?

    Window > Output > Separations Preview and then you need to select Separations from the dropdown at the top of the panel.
    Click the eyeball next to the Black plate to turn it off. If there is no color on the page it should go blank. If it doesn't, you've found the problem.

  • Creating unique names for virtual copies

    I utilze three different sets of images for most jobs: the raws, the thumbnails I upload for client review and the jpgs I send out for prints. I like to match the filenames so there is no confusion.  Unfortunately my gallery (smugmug pro) also assigns a unique # to each upload.  When I use virtual copies to ceate alternate versions of certain images they are named copy 1 or copy 2 in LR and the preceding # is dropped from the sequence, so when I upload the thumbnails, the gallery #s no longer match the filename # below. I always instruct my clients to ordeer selections from the filename but enough of my retail clients have become confused that it is becoming irritating. So I was wondering if there is a way to overide the LR presets and assign individual names to the virtual raws and the jpgs?

    OK You are confusing the file name with the SmugMug URL. When you publish to SmugMug you are exporting a new jpeg so your virtual copy is irrelevant unless you have a method of linking it with what your client is viewing. That probably means not changing the original camera file except for the number of different edits you make; which Lightroom does automatically.
    　 

  • Virtual copies are invisible to me in LR 4.3

    When I create virtual copies, the total number of instances of the image goes up but I don't see any of the virtual images. I unstack and it shows they're unstacked and "1 of 2" but I still can't see the other. I've turned off all filters and still nothing.
    It was happening in 4.3rc and is still happening in 4.3. It is only present in certain catalogs.

    jasonjmp2 wrote:
    I would have thought that when you are in the Libary in a collection and you make a virtual copy, LR would automatically add the copy to the collection that contains it's Master.
    Yes, that is the expected procedure. The VC should be added to the collection automatically if it is created while working in the collection. And I never had a problem with this.
    For all of you who have problems with VCs not showing where they are expected:
    This could be due to a corrupt Preference File. This file can go "funny" and is then responsible for all kinds of strange behavior of Lr. The remedy is replacing the Preference File.
    See here for where to find the Preference file for your OS: http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/preference-file-locations-lightroo m-4.html
    See here for how to go about Replacing the Preference File: http://lightroomers.com/replacing-the-lightroom-preference-file/745/

  • Virtual copies exported in Win7 appear to lose edits

    When I export virtual copies IN LR5, all seems well.  The Library Grid view shows the new copies of the original image with the various changes I have made in Develop.  This is also true for the brief folder view that LR5 pops up at the end of the export.  But, when I later view the same folder with the Win7 Computer utility, or any other editor, these files all appear the same as the original!  No changes evident.  So it appears that I have missed some step in the export process to "fix" the changes in the virtual copies to the new files?
    Kelly Cook

    I know they should be different after export.  I expected them to be different.  Could the original file type be an issue?  My original was a JPG, not RAW.  The Library mode let me create virtual copies, the same a using a RAW file.  And, Develop let me make all the usual adjustments to the virtural copies, same as if they had been RAW.  Export did not put up any warning flags either, appeared to function normally, even though I was exporting JPG virtual copy to JPG.  I did use unique filenames (appended the Copy text) for each of the exports, so there should not be any confusion there.  Is some extra step needed to export a JPG virtual copy to JPG?  Or is this an undocumented issue?

  • Virtual copies and history?

    I want to creat virtual copies that include the history so I can rever them from BW back to the origianl color.  Why is the history removed when you creat virtual copies?

    Alan - thanks for the tip. The conundrum of "which history should be shown" for multiple virtual copies isn't actually one at all. When a virtual copy is created, the history of the parent image is duplicated; further edits to that particular virtual copy are added to the top of that copy, just like they are now. Subsequent edits to the master copy don't affect any of the descendant VC's, including their history.
    Andrew - why does it have to be a new iteration? It clearly isn't, since it has inherited all of the non-destructive edits from the parent. And you haven't addressed my workflow issue - how do I identify all of the edits made to a virtual copy? Right now, I can't; Lightroom throws this information away. There's no penalty if Adobe duplicated the edit history, you don't have to look at it if you don't want to.
    Cornelia - someone has already created a feature request, here it is:
    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/new_virtual_copies_should_inherit_de velop_history
    Cheers,
    Tim

  • No warning when deleting a Master image that is linked to Virtual Copies?!

    Scenario: I am trying to clear out old images to free up storage space, so I go back though thousands of images looking for weak . unrequired shots.
    Problem; when dealing with "mass deletions" it is near impossible to detect which images are "Master copies" from which I have any number of Virtual Copies. And when you hit delete you might well be ruining Virtual Copies without knowing it.
    Surely there is a way to warn you that pics, X, Y & Z are linked to Xcopy1, YCopy1 & Zcopy1 etc, and give you an IMAGE SPECIFIC option to see those copies and make a choice of delete the master or not? I can't beleive Adobe think its user-freindly to have people trawl through each image to check before a deletion?
    I know others have expressed similar concerns, and it seems a REALLY glaring omission in an otherwise decent ptoduct.
    Comments from Adobe staff more than welcome.

    eddybaby66 wrote:
    Your response implies that you know how another person wishes to use the product, and it is clear that you do not know this. Being so prescriptive is no way for Adobe to look at an issue like this either.
    your responce to the observation from the above forum member is a little inelegant and harsh. It is a very good way of telling you where there are VC's of images, but as you said, your methods are your own. Doing things your way and then asking for help and then biting like that is, well up to you how you reply to those offering help and positive suggestions
    I dont' expect Adobe would be so prescriptive and +1 your comment and request is a very valid one

  • How to make copies/duplicates of photos in LR4 - NOT Virtual Copies

    Can someone tell me if there is a SIMPLE way to make a copy or duplicate of a photo in LR4. In otherwords, you have a photo image in one folder and you want to make a copy and move it to another folder or subfolder and that copy is identical in EVERY aspect to the original photo and can be edited, manipulated, etc. without affecting the original. I can find nothing on this subject - all I keep getting is this VIRTUAL COPY which is NOT like the original and cannot be moved without the original (Master) going along with it. What's the problem? Every image program I know of can do this. BTW this in on a Mac Lion (10.8.4). Thank you, Brad

    Rikk Flohr wrote:
    new location - do not rename
    Or same (or different) location, and do rename.
    I do this regularly, but only for testing purposes. Note: Some people don't want to use virtual copies, because they are handled as "2nd class citizens" by Lightroom (e.g. not saved in xmp, and must tag along with master base copy...).
    That said, I agree that care should be taken when having multiple (real) copies of same file, especially if they have the same filename (which I don't recommend, unless you really know what you are doing, and why...).
    Rob

  • Lightroom Virtual Copies when creating publish gallery

    When I create a publish gallery, I have the option of creating virtual copies. However, I notice the virtual copy stays with the original image, along with showing in the publish gallery. I would have figured the copy would only show in the publish gallery. Since I can't immediately tell where the vitual copy is linked to, it makes it confusing sometimes if I go back to re-edit. I want to isolate the photo from the orignal copy so lightroom doesn't want to republish any future edits to that file. Using lightroom 3.6. I've searched on this behavior and haven't found any helpful information.
    Any suggestions on how to more effectively use this in my workflow?

    With "publish gallery" you mean a collection under a Publish Service?
    I have not checked with LR4.2 how this behaves, but with normal collections you should get only the virtual copies as members.
    But you can remove the masters from the collection, using the filter: when in the collection, choose only master files in the filter bar, no virtual copies nor videos. Then select them all and choose simple delete: this will not remove from catalog ( as a splash-delete would do), but simply revoke their collection membership. Unlock the filter and you should have only the virtual copies left in your collection.
    Cornelia

  • Virtual copies disappeared when I synchronized folders - any idea why?

    I am in the process of learning to work with the LR3 catalog, but in the meantime, I still occasionally work with the folders on my computer. I moved some photos from one folder to a sub folder at the system level, and when I went back to LR I needed to synchronize the folders because of the change. After the sync was complete, I noticed all of my virtual copies in LR had disappeared. Is there an option to save the virtual copies during synchronization that I am missing? Or do I need to save each virtual copy with a new name before I sync anything? I would so appreciate any help on this as I know the virtual copy feature will be a very useful tool for me in the future. Thanks for any help!!

    Thank you for your answers. I definitely understand now that sync will not preserve my virtual copies, but I will somehow need to come up with a different way to manage my folders. I know that LR empasizes using the catalog as the main source for working with your photos, but the reason that doesn't work for me is that I do not always need to be in LR when I am working with my photos. Not only that, but my husband and daughter also use my photo folders on occasion, so I need to have easy access for them. Neither one of them are familiar with LR, so I use my folders to organize the photos in a way that they could find them without having to access LR. For example, I edit photos for my daughter's online business. When I am done editing, I put them in a folder for her to use that only contains the edited versions so she doesn't have to wade through the other pictures. That is much easier than teaching her how to find them in LR and then export the ones that she needs, making sure she is doing it all correctly without messing up my catalog or system folders.
    The other reason I prefer to organize my folders from my hard drive is that I prefer the viewing program in Windows. I get much bigger views of the photos than I do in LR without having to hide any other tools, boxes, etc. When I want to see the largest view possible I just double click the photo, then use my arrow key to scroll through any others. In LR, I have to hide all the additional stuff on the screen.
    I think I will go back and re-read the section on Collections. Hopefully that will be what I need to save my virtual copies as I create them. Or maybe I should make snapshots of them when I try different presets. Will Collections or Snapshots be preserved when I sync the folders?
    Thanks again for your time!

  • Inconsistent order in grid when creating Virtual Copies.

    When I create a virtual copy of a photo and look at it with the stack expanded, the order that the two pics appear in the library grid is inconsistent. Sometimes the VC is listed AFTER the original in the grid, and sometimes it's listed BEFORE the original. When it's listed before the original, I've tried changing the stack "on top" setting, but this only changes which photo appears when the stack is collapsed -- the order when expanded stays the same.
    I feel like I might be missing something here, i.e. is there some method of making a VC appear after vs before the original in the library grid? Also, is there a way to swap the order so that I can "fix" the situation? So far, the only fix I've found is to delete the VC and re-create it, at which point the order is sometimes corrected.
    Thanks for any feedback on this,
    Larry

    b_gossweiler wrote:
    it might be that you have a filter in effect on "All Photographs" that prevents the VCs from being shown
    Here's why I don't think that's my problem. I search and find an image - so yes I am using a filter - lets say I want file ABC123. Now I see that frame and I also see a Virtual Copy which I previously created. So clearly I don't have a any filter to prevent my seeing VCs. Now I select the Master and create a new Virtual Copy. The new copy does not appear but the Master reports it is now 1 of 3. So Lightroom is telling me there are three copies of this file, but only displays two, the Master and an older Virtual Copy.
    All I have to do (!) to see the new Virtual Copy is quit and relaunch. Now I see all three copies, the Master, the older and the new VIrtual Copy. Nothing changes between quit and relaunch.
    Even if "All Photographs" isn't a Smart Collection, is appears to have the same issue others have reported on creating Virtual Copies.
    DG

  • When I'm travelling I import photos onto my laptop's external hard drive and work on the images using virtual copies to develop them. When I get home, I want to import all the photos together with the developed virtual copies fromt the laptop's external H

    When I'm travelling I import photos onto my laptop's external hard drive and work on the images using virtual copies to develop them. When I get home, I want to import all the photos together with the developed virtual copies fromt the laptop's external HD into LR5 on my PC desktop. But if I use the import button in LR I only get the original photo, not the developed copies. What am I doing wrong?

    Since your current editing workflow is based around Virtual Copies there are no actual files containing the edit data. Therefore, you'll need to use the 'Import from another catalog' option ( see File menu).

  • When i download songs from i tunes to i pod some songs dont play or they skip songs or they make 2 copies of songs  what to do

    when i download songs from i tunes library to i pod  some songs dont play or they skip songs  or they make 2 copies of songs  what to do

    *Skipping songs*
    The iPod seems to fail to play all of the occasional track that iTunes, and indeed other PMPs, are happy to play. There is probably some minor technical error in the internal structure of the file which is normally ignored by other playback software but causes the Classic to bail out.
    You may like to try scanning the files with MP3 Validator which can find & fix some internal MP3 errors.
    Some users have also suggested that completely removing all id3 tags and then replacing the information can be a solution. This can be achieved in iTunes by selecting an affected track, right/option clicking and using the option Convert id3 tags > None. Since some files may mistakenly have more than one tag you may need to repeat this action. Once you have confirmed that no tag is present you can replace the tag information using Convert id3 tags > V2.3 (I believe it is recommended to avoid using V2.4).
    Personally I have found files for which these solutions don't work. In this case the workaround is either to re-rip the tracks or get iTunes to re-encode the file, e.g. convert AAC to MP3 or vice versa and sync the newly encoded file to the iPod instead. Because transcoding will cause a loss of fidelity you should keep your original file so that if a future iPod firmware resolves this issue you can put your original files back onto the iPod.
    tt2

  • Can not find virtual copies in Windows folder.

    I can not remember to have encountered this before, so here I go: I just created a virtual copy of some photos from my summer holiday, and all works well. But when I needed to access these photos going the Windows' way (Windows/My Pictures that is), the virtual copies do not appear in my YYYYMM folder. Going back to LR though, they will appear there with a /Copy 1 extension. RIghtclicking the VC, then "Show in Explorer" will highlight the original in the folder, the VC still not being there. Part of the frustration is that I can not remember this happening before (or maybe it has), so I'm wondering if I by accident have changed any settings.
    Running LR 4.1 on Windows 7 64-bit.
    Thanks in advance.

    Andrew Rodney wrote:
    richardplondon wrote:
    My only point, was an observation that there is very little actual practical difference between a virtual copy and a "master" ANYWAY.
    So you have 1 master (an actual raw) and 10 VC’s. What happens to the VC’s if the master gets corrupted?
    If your master has say Adobe Standard as the DNG Profile but the VC has a custom DNG profile, what happens to the VC if that profie goes missing or gets corrupted? Try it.
    If by "master", you mean the Raw file on disk, then if that is corrupted (something I have never yet experienced IIRC; although I still backup against this possibility) then certainly, all images derived from that will suffer. However adding VCs does not increase the absolute risk of that. The way I was using "master", was to refer to the one LR metadata set which, unlike a VC metadata set, currently asserts a functional link to the source file. If that LR metadata set were to get corrupted, (something I have never yet experienced either IIRC, although I still backup against that possibility too) then I might be glad of a VC which I could immediately promote to that role and status instead.
    Certainly bad things may happen to a VC if a required external file is lost or changed - but these are exactly the same bad things, as if the exact same events had happened for the "master" version alongside. I do take the point that there is protection in redundancy - no question - and also that instantly written-out metadata is a useful separate backup of one's work (as I mentioned, I'd be glad if VCs could get the same thing too somehow, someday).
    One-to-many dependency on a single source file can make some good things happen too,though, which may be judged worth any potential added risks. Say deliberate changes are newly made to a Photoshop edit on which several LR image versions are based. These updates will ripple through all virtual versions automatically; whereas if these versions had instead been fully independent, the same changes would need to be made repeatedly to get the same result; assuming one wants all these versions to reflect the changes; which is (should be; needs to be) the realistic expectation, when one has opted to use a cluster of VCs in the first place.

Maybe you are looking for