• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
27

P: Inconsistent dates for files missing date/time metadata

LEGEND ,
Jul 30, 2011 Jul 30, 2011

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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...

Bug Fixed
TOPICS
Windows

Views

557

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 1 Correct answer

Adobe Employee , Jun 18, 2014 Jun 18, 2014
This is fixed in Lightroom 5.5, which is now available. (Note that there are several distinct problems discussed in this thread, so when I say that "this is fixed" I'm referring to the problem which John Ellis originally reported.)

Thanks,
Ben

Votes

Translate

Translate
42 Comments
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.)

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Mar 28, 2014 Mar 28, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Employee ,
Apr 02, 2014 Apr 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"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

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Apr 02, 2014 Apr 02, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you, Ben. (And if my backhanded remark came across as a backhanded compliment, then that was entirely unintentional!) You've taken my point well, which was that having a feature on the features list doesn't mean much when the feature doesn't work properly, and having a bug in the bug database doesn't mean anything when the bug doesn't get any attention whatsoever.

You guys have (understandably) moved well beyond fixing bugs in Version 4 at this point, so I know that for me anyway, I'll never see this problem go away unless I pony up for a new version that might just maybe not have this bug. It's frustrating, really.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 11, 2014 Jun 11, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm new to Lightroom and noticed this bug the third day I used it. It took me several hours to figure out what the problem is and how to work around it (see http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...). I hope you understand that it didn't help to build trust in the product. Please bump your bug priority once again.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Employee ,
Jun 18, 2014 Jun 18, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This is fixed in Lightroom 5.5, which is now available. (Note that there are several distinct problems discussed in this thread, so when I say that "this is fixed" I'm referring to the problem which John Ellis originally reported.)

Thanks,
Ben

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 18, 2014 Jun 18, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's great, Ben. I wish the bug had been fixed during the lifetime of LR 4, though, for those of us still on that version. Three years and two major versions later is really too big a waterfall.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 27, 2014 Jun 27, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I just verified that the original problem I reported is indeed fixed in LR 5.5. Thanks!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jul 07, 2014 Jul 07, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Umm, when I import a mix of pictures (raw and jpg) and videos from my Sony Nex7 the videos are 4 hours off.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jul 07, 2014 Jul 07, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LR has never done a great job of importing video metadata. One problem is that LR will screw up the time zone of Quicktime-format videos:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

See this thread for more general issues with LR's handling of video metadata:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jul 08, 2014 Jul 08, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thank you John. I am now following those threads!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Dec 09, 2014 Dec 09, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

There still appears to be a problem for video files. See this new topic (since this topic has been marked as "solved"):

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Dec 13, 2014 Dec 13, 2014

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST
Thanks as always John!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report