RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

First, allow me clear somethings.
>I never suggested, recommended or used an SD cards for image storage. Edited files are written back to "the card" for additional editing as needed.
This a well written quote from another Experienced UHH'er...”no editor, text, hex, photo, music etc. edits directly to the source of the file. All editors I know of edit in RAM, not on disk. The editor loads the file into RAM and all editing is done in RAM _not_ on the source drive. When you save your edit, you physically tell your editor to write the edits [that are at the moment only in RAM] to disk. You typically have a number of choices of where to write/save those changes. Generally the editor only cares that the location (SD card, SSD, Internal/External drive, cloud) exists and can be accessed”.
Here's my experience with my main editors:
>Lightroom software requires files to be downloaded and builds previews, stores EXIF and Metadata to Library/Catalog as editing requires, changes are stored/saved to a defined folder on a hard drive in most instances. The file can be opened with other software.
>DxO software - Images are opened in RAM, (no download) Edits create a new image/file and saves it back to the source file (the card in this case) as a ...filenameDxO.jpeg with EXIF and MetaData all on the card. This new jpeg image can be uploaded to Lightroom, Elements, Luminar Neo...etc
>Files created in DxO "helps" my older and unsupported version of Lightroom 6.14. I can still edit and use the legacy LR catalog for file management and storage on external hard drives.
The difference in the two programs is observable.

My use of DxO 7 edits in RAM and saving edited images (as a jpeg) to the card (folder) rather than a hard drive for editing in other programs (with different capabilities) has caused the appreciated cautionary comments in this tread. That's understandable.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Missing the point and making no sense.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Kind of the ongoing theme of this thread. Time to let him go and face the inevitable alone.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Lightroom requires the file data to be accessible, as does ALL editing software. Without access to the data, there can be no editing. It is perfectly possible to edit directly from a card in Lightroom (all you have to do is specify the card as the path to the file), but doing so is only useful as a temporary measure. If you edit directly from the card, your data source disappears when you remove the card. That means you cannot re-edit without replacing the card. It is not something you want to do with a system that includes organization. As far as downloading the data, that is necessary, or you have no data to edit. If you edit from the card you download the data to RAM instead of to disk. So you have the data in RAM to edit, but when you're done editing the RAM gets used for something else and the data disappears.

It is not clear to me how DxO creates files that 'help' LR6.14. What sort of help? Does it do better than the current LR would have done? How do you know?

Yes, I believe the use of the card as the primary editing source before backup is the main point of contention. A risky shortcut. If the image has any value you will probably want it on your disk eventually, so why are you resisting downloading it?

This whole exercise seems to me to be an attempt to use the capabilities of Lightroom without going for a subscription. Substituting a non-subscription software package for some of the LR capabilities. You still have to spend money for the other package. And there are NO software packages out there that will last forever. It is not economically feasible. Sure, you can get a package that will do something for you as long as your computer operating system is at a certain point, but there will come a time when the OS has to be upgraded for safety and at that point you may have to update your software to run on the new OS. That kicks the can down the road. And in LR we're talking about something like $120/year. $120 sounds like a lot of money to some people but that is spread over a year. For a hobby, it's really negligible.

It's possible that I am missing something where DxO (current) has an advantage over LR, but I have not seen any such thing that I can identify in the current thread. DxO 'gives better edited results' (according to the OP). The OP is within his rights to hold that opinion, but to convince the rest of us he needs to spell it out out. How are the results better? Is it not possible to duplicate the results with up to date software? Or Photoshop?

Many years ago DxO was one of the software packages I tried out when I was just getting started with digital processing. I still have a couple images I did using DxO and they are worth keeping (to me, anyway). But I settled on LR/PS eventually and dropped DxO when it started giving me problems. I'm sure it has had time to grow out of those problems but I am now using LR/PS and happy with it. Getting me to start using DxO again will take some convincing, and it has not yet happened.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

[quote=Orphoto]

SailAway Loc: Whitehall, Michigan

Can any of you Lightroom geniuses explain to me how to export jpegs to a file on my hard drive so that I can print from that file? and so that I can transfer the jpegs to one of my photo frames (NON WIFI). I am an avid DXO user, but giving Lightroom a try again.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Research how to use the Export dialog in LR Classic. There's no simple answer, as printing involves several questions:

a, What is the target print size?
b, Do your images have a pixel resolution needed to achieve 300 pixels per inch for that target print size?
c, What paper stock will you use?

The answers above will let you create a User (Custom) Export Preset that standardizes the JPEG export to that paper stock.

Regarding how to populate a digital frame, just determine the pixel resolution of the frame and create still another User Export Preset that standardizes that export process. Here, the answers can be more specific as you'll want to use the sRGB colorspace and 'resize' based on the long-side of the image. Personally, I've found that I should use a metadata filter on the aspect ratio, selecting only landscape images for use in my landscape sitting frame. At the bottom of the original post in this link, below, is an LR Export screen capture that could be a model for your updates to your specific frame size:

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images