P: Lens metadata field missing on import

[jonasflanken]

Since updating Photoshop and Lightroom, I've noticed that the aux:lens metadata field is being deleted from my images on import, such that there is no lens listed after import. I've determined that it's Camera Raw 9.5 that seems to be the culprit, as lens metadata is retained if I use an older version of the DNG Converter v8.8 to import the same images.

For example, I had an image shot on a Sony RX100 III at 8.8mm. If I import this image with the old version of DNG Converter, and then open the converted DNG in Photoshop, the lens is reported with the full-frame equivalent focal lengths, i.e., 24-70mm F1.8-2.8, and the raw metadata has the correct aux:Lens field (24-70mm F1.8-2.8).

Conversely, if I import the same image directly into Photoshop or Lightroom, the metadata will display the correct focal length, but will not display the lens information; Lightroom reports this only as "unknown lens," and in Photoshop the aux:Lens field is missing completely.

For now, I will use the old version of DNG Converter as a workaround, but this is inconvenient, and really should be fixed.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

The library module database is somehow broke in 2015.5.  Reverting to 2015.4 alone does not fix the faulty data base entry. , even though the info is in the xml sidecar file.
Fortunately caught the problem soon enough so only had to fix a couple days of work using the method stated a few posts previous after reverting back to 2015.4.

They claim it is being worked on?  Still not fixed!  Still had to pay for my subscription!!!!

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

You'll be able to recover the data. Just go to Metadata menu > Write Metadata to Files and then Metadata menu > Read Metadata from Files (with the applicable photos selected, of course).  That'll work in 2015.4, or in the update they release to stop it happening to future photos.

[jonasflanken]

An additional data point: the Import function in LR2015.5 transfers lens metadata for RAW files from the Panasonic DMC-GM1. So I think the evidence to date suggests this is a Nikon-specific problem.

Do we have an ETA for a fix? It seems like it would be a relatively straightforward patch or reversion, unless the Import functionality has fundamentally changed in this update. Using older versions of LR/DNG Converter/Camera Raw for my existing Nikon gear is an acceptable workaround for the moment, but if this isn't fixed by the time the D500 becomes widely available I for one will not be a happy camper.

[itguy08]

There are examples of this in this thread from Canon (CR2) and in your OP you mention that your Sony RX100 III also exhibits this behavior.  Has that changed?

Adobe, you need to get this fixed ASAP!!!!

[simonsaith]

Soon, pending testing. Stay tuned.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Let's hope so.

[jonasflanken]

To be clear, my initial post was inaccurate: the importer does NOT exhibit this behavior with the Sony RX 100 III. I referenced an RX image that I had open in Lightroom to give an example of the lens data that was missing, but hadn't actually tested the RX. Unfortunately, I seem to be unable to edit my original post, so I can't correct that inaccuracy. From my gear, this is which cameras' RAW files exhibit the import problem:

Nikon D810: yes
Nikon D5500: yes
Panasonic DMC-GM1: no
Sony RX 100 III: no

[jonasflanken]

Agreed!

[Christian_Gantar]

Came to the same conclusion. - Adobe DNG converter 9.2 works fine too.

[Guest]

Will the lens metadata be refreshed automatically or will I have to do it manually?

I'd like to refresh the lens metadata for my photos but I'm afraid Lightroom would discard all other metadata since I'm not using XMP sidecar files.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Jeffrey, How is the fix coming? Any status? Thank you.

[ssprengel]

He said they're working on it.  The "when" question isn't something Adobe answers. 

I would expect a fix sooner than the approximately 3 months until xxx.6 would normally be released, but from what I've seen on the forums, this isn't the only issue being dealt with.

Unless you need brand-new camera support, the workaround is to roll back to LR 6.4/2015.4 by uninstalling LR 6/2015 completely--but leave the preferences, don't delete them, then reinstall LR 6/2015, then the .4 update patch, both of which can be downloaded from here: 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/06/keeping-lightroom-up-to-date.html#lrcc2015

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

It wasn't Nikon specific for me.  I was importing some older Canon .cr2 files with the
current version into new Lightroom libraries and lens model did not come with them!

I hope the fix is coming rapidly as well.  They don't waste time collecting their subscription fees!  

[Guest]

That's only a solution if the files are RAW though. In the case of JPEGs, write metadata to files is a destructive operation that actually changes the headers on the original files 😕

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Buongiorno, da quando ho installato l'ultima realease - 2015.5 , dopo
che importo una serie di raw, vado sui filtri nel modulo Libreria è
seleziono Metadati-Obiettievo, il risultato è "Obiettivo sconosciuto".
Ho provato sul portatile che ha la stessa versione è si ripete la stessa cosa.
Ho poi utilizzato la versione LR 6.2  e ripetendo le
stesse operazioni tutta funziona bene con l'indicazione corretta delle
ottiche utilizzate.

[nicholast55972644]

Having the same problem with my Nikkor lenses - this is very unsatisfactory and increasingly inconvenient - please fix as a matter of priority. While doing so, please ensure that the EXIF lens data on photos imported into the current release is correctly displayed on the new, fixed release.

[ajlcanada]

It's profoundly unsettling to (apparently) lose data from photographs as they're imported. Users who do not frequent these support sites are not likely to know why their data seems to be disappearing on import. Assurances on these boards that the data remains buried in the file are not entirely reassuring to users who convert to DNG because the conversion to DNG has a "black box" feel to it. So it would good if Adobe produced a fix quickly (three weeks and counting  for what is surely not a huge bug is long, especially for customers who must pay a subscription fee every month!) and made more of a proactive effort to keep its customers informed about the nature of the problem.

[itguy08]

Why would anyone ever convert to DNG?  I can still open MRW (Minolta RAW) files from my Dimage7 in Lightroom, Canon 10D, Nikon D300, etc all are still supported.  And even if Adobe would stop supporting old cameras we could use another app like DCRAW to convert to TIFF or JPEG.

DNG is a nice but very niche format.  And, like RAW is proprietary technology.  I'd rather keep in the various RAW formats and convert if they become unsupported rather than convert to another proprietary format.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Andre said: "So it would good if Adobe produced a fix quickly (three weeks and counting  for what is surely not a huge bug is long, especially for customers who must pay a subscription fee every month!) and made more of a proactive effort to keep its customers informed about the nature of the problem."

They are certainly quick about getting our monthly fee.  Right on time every month!

[rmoorlag]

In combination with Lightroom DNG offers someting no other format does: checking on file integrity with 'DNG validation'. Or in other words: peace of mind 

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I'm not about to save my precious photo files into a proprietary file format such as Adobe's DNG. Who know what the future brings with DNG?? 

In the past, I've loved the WMF format (a vector format for graphics) and have many many files in that format. It was a VERY popular graphic file format. But it is now an unusable format! In my MAC. I have had to purchase a converter so I can still use my WMF files - in a different format. 

I was a Windows user and also loved CorelDraw and Paint Shop Pro. As a MAC user, I can not open .CDR files nor .PSP files!! Though I just Googled and maybe... ugh!!

So, to repeat myself... who knows the future of the Adobe "proprietary" DNG file format? No one. I will not be using DNG for these reasons. 

[itguy08]

What does DNG validation bring me?  If the data is corrupt I'm screwed anyway.  Unless you run these validation procedures in the background that buys you really nothing.  Other than maybe a false sense of security.

I'd rather stick with a RAW format where the camera manufacturer could help recover, or in the case of the more popular formats (Canon, Nikon, etc) the programming community at large could help recover bad data.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

I agree with Matt, if a file is corrupt, it is corrupt.  All "integrity checking" does is verify the obvious.

[Guest]

Having the checksum built in to the file format is indeed useful; knowing that a file is corrupt lets you know when you should restore an earlier version of the file from backup. The earlier you know this, the better.

You don't need to convert your files to DNG in order to do this though; I'm currently writing an application that indexes your files and keeps a database with a validation checksum for each one.

[ajlcanada]

My initial post was not about the merits or drawbacks of DNG; it was, instead, a comment about the bug in Lightroom that seems to obscure lens information. Nevertheless, the discussion about the merits of DNG is an important one. RAW formats are proprietary and closed -- the Nikon cameras I use produce NEF files that are unique to Nikon; they are hardly open format, and should Nikon go bust (which, given the declining sales of DSLRs in the face of competition from other devices, is a real possibility), the NEF format might well be orphaned. This has happened before, and with formats that we all thought at the time might have a fairly long life. (I have old Word for DOS files archived -- and these cannot be opened by current version of Word. The same is true of a host of other file formats we blithely assumed would be readable in the future.) When I print images, I seek out papers and inks that have a long life; when I create a digital image, I hope that I can anticipate some of the changes that might render my images inaccessible. The NEF format is closed and inaccessible; the DNG standard is open and published. Does that mean that DNG is always superior to NEF? No, of course not. But I want my images to be available in five, ten, or fifty years. And so I hedge my bets -- I do both. Some will no doubt groan at this profligate use of hard drive space -- but the cost is relatively small.That said, I return to the problem of Lightroom and lens information, which seems to have nothing to do with the choice of NEF or DNG, and everything to do with a bug that Adobe needs to fix quickly.