Lightroom Videos

Video – Exporting Multiple Versions At the Same Time

This week’s video came from a question I got recently about exporting hi-res and low-res versions of your photos at the same time. While Lightroom won’t let you do it exactly like you’d want with 1 trip to the Export dialog, you can still workaround it pretty easily and get the same results. By the way, I mentioned Photoshop World and my HDR Pre-conference workshop earlier in the video. Here’s the link if you want to find out more. Enjoy.

Click here to download the video to your computer. [Right-click and choose the “Save As” option]



  1. Andy 5 July, 2010 at 06:21 Reply

    Hi Matt,
    Great stuff you have. Just one little remark on your ‘two separate export (can be) faster than one’, the answer is: depends. It seems like LR is single-threaded at least on the export part. That means if you have enough CPU to burn , *AND* the IO ( ie, disk bandwidth) is not the limiting factor, you should get linear increase of export speed. Increasing the total number of simultaneous export will eventually reach diminishing return, ie, beyond certain point, more simultaneous exports = slower.

    Again. thanks for all the great tips.

  2. Dual 17 February, 2010 at 23:14 Reply

    “Yeah, like shift-selecting multiple presets!”: was posted as a ‘reply’ to someone else’s post way up the page.

  3. Dual 17 February, 2010 at 13:53 Reply

    I keep hitting a problem with saving Export presets: the preset wants to remember the particular folder I exported to. Of course, the next time I export I’m going to export somewhere else, and this causes problems (including exporting unwittingly to the wrong folder time after time).

    Anyone know: Is there a way to create an export preset which doesn’t fill in the folder information used at the time of preset creation?

  4. Jennifer Waters 15 February, 2010 at 17:43 Reply

    Matt, I couldn’t find a “contact” link. I’ve recently watched all your videos you have as I’ve just started using Lightroom over the last couple of weeks. I just a starting photographer, photographing my boys mostly. But you talk a lot about Photoshop and working hand-in-hand with Lightroom. Do you recommend Photoshop Elements or the full Photoshop version?? Basically I want to be able to crop “things” out of photos or do re-touching that I can’t do in Lightroom. Thank you in advance for your reply!!


  5. isaia panduri 15 February, 2010 at 08:35 Reply

    Well, Thomas is right.
    If you measure in pixel, there is no need of dpi
    If you measure in cm, mm, inches etc, then you have to consider dpi values

    The reason is simply. Try to answer to this question: How many dot per inches are there in a 200 pixel image?

    No way you can tell for sure. 72 or 96 are the correct answers for images you display on monitor, based on your OS.

    How many dot per inches are there in a 20 cm image?
    Here you can set the value as you prefer, based on the type of printing device you would use. Typografic printing on glossy paper (like the one used for magazines) can reach 300 dpi or even more, but usually a value around 240 is considered usable for most high resolution printings.

    So, if you need a low resolution image only for on screen (monitor) display al you need to set is the measure in pixel. If you want full screen on a 1024×768 monitor you need only these value to set.

    If you need an image able to be printed in a 8” x 11” you will need to set up both the measures and the dpi value.

  6. Tomharg 14 February, 2010 at 16:00 Reply

    I thought I understood the ppi/dpi vs size thing, but now I’m getting confused. It seems to me that size in pixels and size in dimensions are two different things. I’m thinkng that if I set the size in inches or cm., then set the ppi, I can multiply the ppi times inches and get total pixels across or down (p/in. x in. = pixels), however large those pixels are on screen or printer output (where it translates to dpi). However, if I set the desired size in pixels AND set ppi, then I am determining the size in inches (pixels / pixels/inch = inches). In either case, if I set BOTH, the algorithm is going to either reduce or increase the total number of pixels from the original to match the overall size I constrained it to. On the other hand, if I set either ppi OR size, the algorithm will keep the total number of original pixels the same and either change the size to match the ppi, OR change the ppi to match the size. Based on this theory, I have been setting either one or the other when I export, and always check the “Do Not Enlarge” to keep from losing resolution if the algorithm decides to increase the number of pixels. Do I have this correct, or am I REALLY confused?

  7. Thomas 14 February, 2010 at 02:44 Reply

    Ben Wilson: Of course it’s different. But 1600 pixels on screen are 1600 pixels.

    My point is that ppi sets the resolution of a printed image and controls the amount of pixels. I never use the number of pixels to decide the size of a print. I set the width/height in cm and then the ppi. On screen I set the width/height in pixels and the ppi is irrelevant. That’s way I wonder why Matt uses pixels and ppi instead of inches/cm when deciding the size of a print.

  8. Jeff 14 February, 2010 at 01:30 Reply

    Love all your posts. One request – can you make an option so I can view your videos full screen? I always do the Ctrk+Scroll to zoom in, and that’s a pain.


  9. Ben Wilson 13 February, 2010 at 19:29 Reply

    A bit of math. 1600 x 240 is 384,000 pixels wide where a 1600 x 72 is only 115,200 wide. If you further reduce the image down to 600 pixels, the # of pixels is reduced even further to 43,200. Wouldn’t you agree that preparing image for screen or print are quite different?

  10. Herwig 13 February, 2010 at 10:40 Reply

    Actually, the DPI setting is both useless and confusing for digital images. It is there for historical reasons for people from the print business who are unable to bend their mind around the concept of digital photography.

  11. Jonathan Payne 12 February, 2010 at 16:39 Reply

    Hey Matt,
    This doesn’t really go with this video, but as I was going through some of your older videos I noticed one little thing…you’re still using the fairly, ahem, “feminine” panel end mark. You know, the little graphic at the bottom of your panels in LR2. I mean, it’s cool and all if that’s how you roll, but maybe you’d prefer something a little more “manly”, like the Tattoo or Atom choice. I’m just sayin’…..

  12. Sylvain 12 February, 2010 at 11:28 Reply

    Hi if I can just add something. When your presets are done if you just right-click on your image and in the contextual menu just go to Export, all your presets are there and you don’t have to open the export menu. This is really going to speed up your export.


  13. Thomas 12 February, 2010 at 03:28 Reply

    Matt, I understand what you mean about the definition of a hi-res image. But why define the ppi when you’ve already set width and height in pixels? Maybe it’s the American way, but I have never heard of pixels AND ppi when printing. When printing I set the width in cm and then the ppi. The number of pixels is the result of my first two parameters.

  14. mattk 11 February, 2010 at 18:05 Reply

    Thomas and Torbjorn – Hi-res doesn’t mean “full” resolution. It doesn’t have to be an either/or thing – you can do both. An image sized to 1600 pixels in width or height at 240 ppi will print smaller than an image sized to 2400 pixels at 240ppi. I’d still consider it hi-res. For many reasons some one may request a hi-resolution version of a photo that 1600pixels at 240ppi will cover just fine. I get asked for higher quality images all the time but I don’t send them the full sized file as they don’t need it that large. Just depends on where they’re going I guess.


  15. Thomas 11 February, 2010 at 14:20 Reply

    Torbjorn: I know. That’s why I wonder why Matt is defining width and height in pixels AND sets the PPI. You do either or – not both.

  16. Thomas 11 February, 2010 at 13:25 Reply

    Matt: For the HI-res image you set Width and Height to 1600 each. Then you set PPI to 200. Why?

    If the image is set to be a maximum of 1600 px width or height, when does the PPI come in to play?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *