Skip to main content
Participating Frequently
October 25, 2020

P: Photos are marked for republish even though there is no change.

  • October 25, 2020
  • 112 replies
  • 19101 views

I noticed after updating my new v10 converted catalog that LrC was acting slow in the Library module, so I disengaged the usual culprit for this, the "Automatically write changes into XMP" setting. Then to my dismay, I noticed that it proceeded to mark the majority of the photos in the current grid view as needing a metadata update, even though the catalog metadata was fully saved to XMP prior to the upgrade, as far as I was aware.

 

Then I paged down, and the pattern repeated: Lightroom scanned all the now-visible photos and found that almost all of them also needed to be updated on disk.

 

And I did it again. And again.

 

Eventually I wrote a script to send "Page Down" events to the program periodically to ensure that Lightroom looked at every photo in the catalog, then let it run overnight with the library filter set to "Metadata Status = Up to date", so that it would give me the list of photos that need no metadata update. The next morning, I scrolled the grid back up to the top and let it go again, to catch any photos it missed on the first pass.

 

In the end, it marked over four-fifths of my catalog as out of date. This beggars belief, since I normally keep "Automatically write changes into XMP" engaged.

 

Then I did an experiment: I ran exiftool on one of the photos marked as still needing an update, saving the result to a text file, told Lightroom to save the metadata (⌘-S) and ran exiftool on the result, saving the output to a different text file, and diffed the two outputs, and found only timestamp and program version differences!

 

Observe:

 

5c5< File Modification Date/Time     : 2020:10:23 18:31:53-06:00---> File Modification Date/Time     : 2020:10:25 10:46:00-06:007c7< File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2020:10:23 18:31:53-06:00---> File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2020:10:25 10:46:00-06:0026c26< Instance ID                     : xmp.iid:9acec219-b6a4-4918-a592-9fc6a0ab3486---> Instance ID                     : xmp.iid:b5e76784-9638-44a1-a8b6-4e17799d003f28c28< Metadata Date                   : 2020:10:23 18:31:53-06:00---> Metadata Date                   : 2020:10:25 10:46-06:0040,41c40,41< History Instance ID             : xmp.iid:eac2ee0b-0b2d-4143-8da1-cafb424d66cc, xmp.iid:9acec219-b6a4-4918-a592-9fc6a0ab3486< History When                    : 2014:04:27 20:29:30-06:00, 2020:10:23 18:31:53-06:00---> History Instance ID             : xmp.iid:eac2ee0b-0b2d-4143-8da1-cafb424d66cc, xmp.iid:b5e76784-9638-44a1-a8b6-4e17799d003f> History When                    : 2014:04:27 20:29:30-06:00, 2020:10:25 10:46-06:00

 

For that particular file, the "Metadata Date" inside Lightroom is in July of 2019!

 

You may then wonder why the file modification time in the diff isn't in 2019, but instead two days ago. I dug into a recent pre-upgrade backup of my photos, and indeed, the prior file's mtime was in 2019. So, not only did LrC v10 decide it needed to do a bogus update to the file's metadata, it touched the file prior to actually being told it was okay to do so!

 

This upgrade has entirely invalidated all of my photo backups. Everything has to be backed up again, all because LrC is being stupid about touching files unnecessarily.

 

Surely the only defensible case for updating the application version number in the file's XMP metadata is that I've changed the photo, so now the program is properly reporting the last application to update the metadata?

 

I see other posts in the forum here on related topics, such as complaints that publish services are forcing a re-publish of unchanged photos. I'm posting this because I think I've diagnosed this to a deeper level than most users.

112 replies

Participating Frequently
November 29, 2024

Still no change even with the latest update.  There appears to be no logic whatsoever as to what photos are marked for republishing although it normally starts with a review of various images but whose metadata etc has not been changed in any way?

johnrellis
Legend
November 24, 2024

Like Johan, I republished all 26K photos, split between two catalogs, immediately after 14.0.1 was released (using the Any Source plugin). Yesterday, I had several hundred needing republishing, on photos whose metadata hadn't changed. That's a much lower rate (so far) than in LR 13, in which nearly ever photo needed republishing, repeatedly.  

Inspiring
November 24, 2024

I've just checked through all of mine and they seem fine. I have a number that have been marked to re-publish but I'm reasonably sure they're photos I've been updating meta data on. I'll revisit in a day or two,  see how they look.

JohanElzenga
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 24, 2024

That was my initial thought too, but that is not the explanation. I republished all what was needed last week, only to find that again some (other) photos needed republishing yesterday.

 

-- Johan W. Elzenga
Inspiring
November 24, 2024

It's working just fine for me now and has been for a while now. Educated guess here, any photos marked for republish before using the new version will remain marked when using the new version for the first time. I went through and cleared everything in the new version and it's been just fine ever since.

JohanElzenga
Community Expert
Community Expert
November 23, 2024

Same here. The bug is definitely not solved yet, despite of what Adobe claims.

 

-- Johan W. Elzenga
johnrellis
Legend
November 23, 2024

Since LR 14.0, I've had several hundred old photos (out of 8K) get marked for republishing to Flickr and Zenfolio. That's a lower rate than before, but it still happens.

Participating Frequently
November 23, 2024

LRC 14.0.1 still has this problem.   I'm currently dealing with thousands of photos jumping up to republish.   Maddening.  This has been going on every new release for years now.

Participating Frequently
October 18, 2024

Hi - to clarify I was using LRC v 14.01.

Inspiring
October 16, 2024

It seems to be, tentatively, working for me. However, before doing anything with the new version, I went through all my publis collections and marked everything that needed it as published. So far, after a couple of days of use, it seems to be behaving itself.