I have about 30,000 images on 3 drives. One of the drives has old stuff that I haven't (knowingly) accessed for several months--before I even acquired LR4.  None of the images on that drive should have had any data changed, yet all of them had that metadata discrepancy alert.  Sure, a few of my images on my current drive might have had data changed, but not all of them.  It's as though upgrading the catalog induced metadata changes that appear as a discrepancy alert.  

There is no way I could have made individual decisions for each image so I decided to do the fix that assuned the catalog info was correct, since the catalog was just created.  I chose to let the catalog data overide the disk data.  I write data to xmp (and jpegs and tiffs) in addition to the catalog.  I guess I never would have seen teh alerts if I did not do that. 

I'm not  a software designer, but there has to be a better way to handle these upgrades than require that a 30,000 images individually in order to make the correct choice in  a dialogue box. Yikes!

Jerry

I think you may be exactly right. I did convert the LR3 catalog to LR4 the second time after converting all to PV2012.  Not sure, but I think I had metadata changes automatically written to xmp, etc.

I'm feeling better that  I did not damage any images by doing that "Overwrite disk-data" command on all my images

Thanks to all.  It's starting to make sense.

Jerry 

web-weaver wrote:

 

...
You think of these message as "error messages". But there are no errors. There's a discrepancy between the catalog data and the image/xmp file, meaning that data saved to the catalog has not also been saved to file. This discrepancy can be resolved any time by saving to file the metadata that is in the catalog.

You are right, and I agree that the alerts mean discrepancies between the catalog and the image/xmp file metadata. 

But the solution is not always as simple as imposing the catalog data on the image file.  I have and use Photoshop CS5, and sometimes alter raw files  with Camera Raw.  It is possible that an intentional Camera Raw change would get undone by "correcting" the image file to the LR catalog. 

What I meant by multiple errors that could not be simply corrected was, for example, a CR change, followed by an LR change to the same image.  That would produce a discrepancy that could not be corrected by either changing the image data to match the catalog, nor by changing the catalog to match the image.

The complications build too quickly when working with both programs.

Jerry

web-weaver wrote:

 

JerryGerber,

You are correct that conflicting edits of a Raw image cannot be easily resolved - if at all.

But I think you have to make a workflow decision here: use only one program as your Raw editor.

In my workflow this program is Lr. I have used Photoshop extensively before we had Lr. Now, I'm using CS5 only for edits that cannot be done in Lr.

That way I avoid running into conflicting metadata.

 

...

Basically, these days that is also the way I work.  LR is clearly the superior raw editing interface, so it is where I begin processing my images, which are virually all imported as raw files via LR.  Bu I'm actually a fairly new (about 6 months) LR user, so most of my images were processed in ACR and brought into LR as an import using LR3 (PV 2010).

I favor LR as my raw converter, but most of my images make a round trip into CS5. I edit in PS, then come back to LR for its superior printing capabilities.  I use PS for it's pixel-editing/layers abilities, its powerful selection tools, and, IMO, mostly-superior image adjustment tools. 

For example, in PS with one or two clicks I can select hundreds of discrete bits of sky peering through a  forest canopy, following which I can make precise color/tonal adjustments to each simultaneously using the PS curves tool.  Unlike the relatively crude LR equivalent, PS Curves allows single-digit precision via keyboard control of the curve shape.  LR just isn't there yet, and may never be, as long as Adobe needs to maintain product differentiation. So I'll continue to make lots of PS adjustments after conversion in LR, and I'll have to be careful that my LR catalog is kept up to date.

Adobe could make my photo editing much easier if they merged the LR Develop Module interface into PS (the raw engine is already there).  Then I could import my images via PS, convert and do my pixel editing all in one application.  To me this seems reasonable, sensible, and do-able, since the same company makes and sells both products.  But maybe that is the reason it isn't done:  I'm sure it is more profitable to sell me two apps than one .   

While I'm dreaming, why not add a LR-style database (catalog) to PS?  Then I'd have everything essential in a single do-it-all application.

LR could remain as is, a competent raw converter/database/printing app for those who are fine with foregoing pixel editing. 

Enough day-dreaming.  I wanted to thank you, Web Weaver, as well as all the discussion participants for forcing me to think about why my workflow is what it is.  I'm new to this forum.  It seems to be the place to be for LR issues.

Jerry Gerber    

web-weaver wrote:

 

JerryGerber,

...  I found that the editing capabilities of Lr are satisfying for 95% of my photos.

An example: Your image with "hundreds of discrete bits of sky peering through a forest canopy". Have you tried the Recovery slider on that? Or have you tried using the Hue - Saturation - Luminance sliders for the bits of sky? ...

I don't know how I could impact the sky without altering other parts of the image in LR.  The example I mentioned has too many odd shaped bits to paint an LR mask, and the LR mask does not apply to tone curves.  It may be possible to sometimes approximate what I can do in PS, but that would be only sometimes and at best an approximation. With PS I can make those bits of sky any brightness or color I choose with zero imapct on the rest of the image.   I don't automatically go into PS, only when I feel I can't get the job done without  a pixel editor.

I have to admit my LR skill has grown to where I am doing more than I was a few months ago.  I hope it will continue to grow, but at this point I don't foresee LR meeting anything like 95% of my editing needs. 

If I had to choose only one program at this point, without hesitation it would be Photoshop (but I sure would miss the LR raw converter!)