Skip to main content
Known Participant
May 11, 2011

P: "Data/Time digital" not shown correctly in Lr 3.4

  • May 11, 2011
  • 43 replies
  • 1483 views

I recently noted that in Lr 3.4 the metadata field "Date/time digital" does not show the correct date any more. It always shows the date/time of the other two date/time fields.
I've tested my catalog again with Lr 3.3 and there it shows correctly. This seems to be bug introduced in Lr 3.4.

This topic has been closed for replies.

43 replies

S_BellerAuthor
Known Participant
May 12, 2011
Yes, I refer to the Date/Time Digitized in the Metadata panel (sorry for the incorrect translation - I'm using Lr in German :-). This happens with my slide scans. What I've done is I changed the capture date/time using Lr's "Edit capture time" (or similar) command in the Metadata menu to change the date to the original capture date and the time to 00:00:00 (because I don't know it).
See below how the dates are shown using the identical catalog in both Lr 3.3 and 3.4.
("Ursp. Dat./Uhrz." means "Original Date/Time"). In Lr 3.4 the digitized data does not appear correctly.

Image is not available



I will post the corresponding TIF image tomorrow as I don't have it at hand just know.
Hope that helps.
Known Participant
May 11, 2011
Right, 3.4 follows the latest Metadata Working Group guidance, which says:
If both XMP (xmp:CreateDate) and Exif DateTimeOriginal are missing, but Exif DateTimeDigitized (36868, 0x9004) exists, Exif DateTimeDigitized SHOULD be used to create an initial XMP (xmp:CreateDate). This is also true in the case that only IPTC DateCreated is available.

That's the only scenario I see where the behavior might have changed. But as John says, seeing the original file (so the metadata can be inspected) would be really helpful.
johnrellis
Legend
May 11, 2011
I assume you're referring to Date/Time Digitized in the Metadataq panel? Can you include a sample image that illustrates this, along with what you see in the Metadata panel in 3.3 and 3.4? LR 3.4 has changed its handling of metadata in some ways to conform with a newer standard, and I'm wondering if you're seeing the effects of this. Posting a sample image will help clarify that.