Skip to main content
johnrellis
Legend
July 30, 2011

P: Inconsistent dates for files missing date/time metadata

  • July 30, 2011
  • 42 replies
  • 1686 views

If an image or video is missing metadata date/time fields, then LR 3.4.1 uses the file's date-modified for filtering, sorting, and pre-populating the Metadata > Edit Capture Time dialog, but it uses the file's date-created to display in the grid view. It should use date-modified consistently for all of those. (When Windows copies or restores a file, the date-modified is preserved, but date-created is usually set to "now".)

This problem trips up people managing scanned images and videos, since scanners typically don't add any metadata and LR doesn't understand much video metadata.

See these threads for examples and details:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/37343...

http://forums.adobe.com/message/38293...

This topic has been closed for replies.

42 replies

Community Manager
April 3, 2014
"What's particularly disappointing about this is that 3 years ago, an Adobe employee posted here that he was investigating the problem."

Hey, that was me! Look at that picture of me, I haven't aged a day. Here's the update I should have posted three years ago: I am able to reproduce the problem, and have written it up in our bug database.

"In general, while we know that Adobe does read this forum and does participate, they rarely give any indication of their intentions."

That is true. Not because we're pathologically secretive, but because we try to avoid committing to any specific future action. Because if we say we're going to do something, and then for some reason we can't do it, people get understandably annoyed. Though as you obliquely point out, the alternative (not being told anything at all) is also annoying in its own way.

"Why should a company go beyond minimally viable product (and spend its resources in doing so) when it knows its customers aren't going to bolt from what is essentially the best-in-class product -- warts and all?"

Umm... thanks? Your award for back handed compliment of the year will be shipped out shortly. 🙂 In actual fact, when we defer a bug it's not out of a secret desire to be lazy and screw our customers. On the contrary, it's because we strive to prioritize our work in the best way possible. Everyone has their pet bugs or pet features, so of course no matter how we prioritize, someone is pissed off, but we do try very hard to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Having said all that, three years is a bit on the long side, isn't it? I've given the bug a bump in our bug database, we'll see what happens. (As a side note, there are at least two separate bugs discussed in this thread: the issue that John reported originally is one bug, the issue of videos not sorting correctly is another bug.)

Thanks,
Ben
johnrellis
Legend
March 28, 2014
Re the Creative Cloud: Updates to Lightroom aren't delivered any more frequently via CC. In the past few years, Adobe has provided about 3-4 updates a year to LR, in the form of point releases or new versions.
Inspiring
March 28, 2014
No you won't, Alex, and nor will any of us. Adobe knows that they've got an excellent product that is much better than anything else out there, and that the product's (many) minor flaws are not sufficient to drive any of their customers away. That's the problem. Why should a company go beyond minimally viable product (and spend its resources in doing so) when it knows its customers aren't going to bolt from what is essentially the best-in-class product -- warts and all?
Inspiring
March 28, 2014
I was debating subscribing to Adobe Creative Cloud last night...What exactly is the point of subscribing for software if critical bugs aren't addressed in updates? As a paying customer, I would like to know if this bug will be addressed in upcoming versions of LR -- minor or major. If not, I will take my money elsewhere.
johnrellis
Legend
March 28, 2014
In general, while we know that Adobe does read this forum and does participate, they rarely give any indication of their intentions. (Just an observation.)
Inspiring
March 28, 2014
What's particularly disappointing about this is that 3 years ago, an Adobe employee posted here that he was investigating the problem. Apparently, he changed his mind, but nobody bothered to tell us that Adobe wasn't going to bother fixing this defect.
johnrellis
Legend
March 28, 2014
Based on all the Library and metadata bugs reported here over the past few years that haven't been addressed, it appears that Adobe hasn't put much effort into that part of LR.
Inspiring
March 28, 2014
It's 2014 and this still isn't fixed. Am I missing something? This is core functionality that is broken and has been ignored by the Lightroom team for 3+ years.
Participant
October 29, 2013
The above was merged from a bug I had filed. So this is why it appears that I have not read any of the preceding content before filing it - I hadn't.
Participant
October 28, 2013


I just imported a bunch of photos & videos from my cell phone into LR 5.2. I noticed that all the .JPGs are at the top of the grid view while all the .MP4s are at the bottom. They should be interspersed in the grid view because that is the order that I took the photos/videos in AND I have Sort: Capture Time selected. This looks like a bug to me.