18 Replies Latest reply on Feb 11, 2015 11:18 AM by Ken Jacobs345

    Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import

    Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

      For reasons explained below, I want to try to re-import all my images into LR and hope that none/few are in fact considered new and are imported.  Yet, for some folders, LR is apparently unable to detect that my source images are already in the catalog, and are on disk, and that the source file meta data matches what LR knows about the images.  When I click an image in LR and Show in Finder, I do see the imported image on disk.  I can edit the image in the Develop module.  So, it seems good, but all is not well.   Sorry for the long post here, but I wanted to provide as much info as I could, as I am really seeking your help, which I'd very much appreciate.

       

      Here are some screen shots that illustrate the problem:

       

      • Finder contents of the original images
      • LR folder hierarchy
      • an image as seen in LR
      • Finder content of external LR copy of images
      • import showing 10 "new" photos

       

      The original images ... (I'm not sure why the file date is April 2001 but the actual image date is January 2011; I may have just used the wrong date on the folder name?)

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 6.16.21 PM.JPG

      The LR folder hierarchy ...

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 5.31.59 PM.JPG

      An image as seen in LR ...

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 5.50.18 PM.JPG

      The external folder containing the images in the LR library

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 6.16.34 PM.JPG

      But on import of the original source folder, LR sees 10 "new" photos ...

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 5.56.58 PM.JPG

       

      I tried "Synchronize Folder ..." on this particular folder, and it simply hangs half-way through as seen in the screen shot below.   IS THIS AN LR BUG?   This is really odd, since "Synchronize Folder ..." on the top-level folder completes quickly.

       

      Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 6.01.30 PM.JPG

       

      I have a spreadsheet of of the EXIF data for the original files and those created by LR.  (I extracted this info using the excellent and free pyExifToolGui graphical frontend for the command line tool ExifTool by Phil Harvey.)   Almost all of the Exif data is the same, but LR has added some additional info to the files after import, including (of course) keywords.  However, I would not have expected the differences I found to enter into the duplicate detection scheme.  (I didn't see a way to attach the spreadsheet to this posting as it's not an "image".)

       

      I'm running LR 5.7 on a 27" iMac with Yosemite 10.10.2, having used LR since LR2.  I have all my original images (.JPEGs and RAWs of various flavors) on my internal drive on the Mac.   To me this is like saving all my memory cards and never re-using them.   Fortunately, these files are backed up several ways.   I import these images (copying RAWs as DNG) into LR with a renaming scheme that includes the import number, original file creation date and original file name.   There should be one LR folder for each original source file folder, with the identical folder name (usually a place and date).  I store the LR catalog and imported images on an external drive.  Amazingly and unfortunately my external drive failed as did it's twin, same make/size drive that I used as a backup with Carbon Copy Cloner.   I used Data Rescue 4 to recover to a new disk what I thought was almost all of the files on the external drive.

       

      So, I thought all would be well, but, when I tried "Synchronize Folder" using the top-level folder of my catalog, the dialog box appeared saying there were over 1000 "New" photos that had not been imported.  This made be suspicious that I had failed to recover everything.   But actually things are much worse than I thought..   I have these counts of images:

       

      • 80,0061 files in 217 folders for my original source files (some of these may be (temporary?) copies that I actually don't want to import into LR)
      • 51,780 files in 187 folders on my external drive containing the LR photo library
      • 49,254 images in the top-level folder in the LR catalog (why different from the external file count?)
      • 35,332 images found during import of the top-level folder containing original images
      • 22,560 images found as "new" by LR during import
      • 1,074 "new" images reported by Synchronize Folder ... on the top-level folder in the catalog; different from import count

       

      Clearly things are badly out of sync.   I'd like to be sure I have all my images in LR, but none duplicated.   Thus, I want to try to import the entire library and have LR tell me which photos are new.  I have over 200 folders in LR.  I am now proceeding to try importing each folder, one at a time, to try to reconcile the differences and import the truly missing images.  This will be painful.  And it may not be enough to fully resolve the above discrepancies.

       

      Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions?  I'd really appreciate your help!

       

      Ken

        • 1. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
          dj_paige Level 9

          A couple of points:

          For reasons explained below, I want to try to re-import all my images into LR and hope that none/few are in fact considered new and are imported.

          Sorry, the definition of import is that Lightroom considers these to be new files.

           

          The screen capture of the Import dialog shows one of the photos to be imported as P5110178.JPG, yet earlier you showed a similarly named photo, but actually with a much longer name. So these are not the same photos, the one shown in the import dialog box is a new photo, which Lightroom will consider to be a brand new photo.

           

          I don't know why your synchronize folder attempt fails.

           

          It's not really clear to me what other problems exist, there is just too much detail and not enough clarity on pointing out specific issues. You know, I can't see the forest for the trees.

          • 2. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
            Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

            Thanks for your prompt reply, dj.  However, an import of a similar folder (with original file names) works fine.  LR detects the duplicates as I expect, even tho the already imported images have the new name (created by LR itself).  It's my understanding that LR stores the ORIGINAL file name in its catalog, and uses that for duplicate detection.

             

            Sorry for the detail.  I wanted to provide enough info so someone could help me diagnose the problem.  Better than saying "it doesnt work" and then providing the details in a random order.  I've tried to figure this out myself but have run out of ideas.

            • 3. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
              Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

              I'm still struggling with this, so in response to dj who said

               

                   "It's not really clear to me what other problems exist, there is just too much detail and not enough clarity on

                    pointing out specific issues. You know, I can't see the forest for the trees."

               

              The specific problem is that LR does not detect duplicates for some folders while it does for others.   Forget the count of files in folders before and after import.  Just look at the single folder I used to illustrate the problem.

               

              In that (source) folder there are 10 images.   All have the names as they came out of the camera.   The folder generated by LR when that folder was previously imported has 10 images, with names generated by LR during the import.   All meta data (create & modified date, EXIF data) are the same in corresponding files.   LR does not detect that these are duplicate images.  It does do so for other similar folders.

               

              That's a pretty high-level description.  Can anyone help?

              • 4. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                dj_paige Level 9

                Does the same problem exist if you try to import (not synchronize) from that folder? In other words, does import improperly think these are not duplicates?

                 

                According to the documentation, a photo is considered a duplicate "if it has the same, original filename; the same Exif capture date and time; and the same file size."


                Can you manually confirm that, for an example photo, that by examining the photo in Lightroom and the photo you are trying to synchronize/import, that these three items are identical?

                 

                With regards to the screen captures of your images and operating system folder, I do not see that the filename is the same; I see the file names are different. Is that because you renamed the photos in Lightroom (either during import or afterwards)? Can you show a screen capture of this image that shows the original file name in the Lightroom metadata panel (it appears when the dropdown is set to EXIF and IPTC)?

                • 5. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                  Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                  Thanks for being on the case, dj!   As you'll see below, YOU WERE RIGHT!      But I am confused.

                   

                      1. Does the same problem exist if you try to import (not synchronize) from that folder? In other words, does import improperly think these are not duplic

                   

                  YES.  Import improperly thinks they are NOT duplicates, but they are in fact the same image (but apparently not the EXACT SAME bytes on disk!)

                   

                      2. According to the documentation, a photo is considered a duplicate "if it has the same, original filename; the same Exif capture date and time; and the same file size."

                   

                  This is my understanding too.


                      3. Can you manually confirm that, for an example photo, that by examining the photo in Lightroom and the photo you are trying to synchronize/import, that these three items are identical?

                   

                  NO, I CAN'T!  The ORIGINAL file name (in the source folder) is the SAME as it was when I first imported that folder.  That name is used as part of the renaming process using a custom template. However, the file SIZES are different.    Here is the Finder Get Info for both files.  Initially, they appeared to be the same SIZE, 253KB, looking at the summary. But, if you look at the exact byte count, however, the file sizes are DIFFERENT: 252,632 for the original file and 2252,883 for the already-imported file:

                  Screen Shot 2015-02-07 at 3.05.40 PM.JPG

                   

                  This difference alone is enough to indicate why LR does not consider the file a duplicate.

                   

                  Furthermore, there IS one small difference in the EXIF data regarding dates ... the DateTimeOriginal:

                   

                                                                                                                   CreateDate              DateTimeDigitized                    DateTimeOriginal              FileModifyDate                              ModifyDate

                  ORIGINAL name: P5110178.JPG                                     2001:05:11 15:27:18    2001:05:11 15:27:18-07:00        2001:01:17 11:29:00        2011:01:17 11:29:00-07:00       2005:04:24 14:41:05  

                  After LR rename:  KRJ_0002_010511_P5110178.JPG    2001:05:11 15:27:18    2001:05:11 15:27:18-07:00        2001:05:11 15:27:18        2011:01:17 11:29:02-07:00       2005:04:24 14:41:05

                   

                  So ... now I see TWO reasons why LR doesn't consider these duplicates.   Though the file NAME is the same (as original), the file sizes ARE slightly different.  The EXIF "DateTimeOriginal" is DIFFERENT.   Therefore, LR considers them NOT duplicates.

                   

                       4a. With regards to the screen captures of your images and operating system folder, I do not see that the filename is the same; I see the file names are different. Is that because you renamed the photos in Lightroom (either during import or afterwards)?

                   

                  I renamed the file on import using a custom template ...

                  Screen Shot 2015-02-07 at 3.40.02 PM.JPG

                   

                          4b. Can you show a screen capture of this image that shows the original file name in the Lightroom metadata panel (it appears when the dropdown is set to EXIF and IPTC)?

                   

                  Screen Shot 2015-02-07 at 3.43.22 PM.JPG

                   

                  SO ....

                   

                  The METADATA shown by LR does NOT include the ORIGINAL file name (but I think I have seen it displayed for other files?).  The File SIZE in the LR metadata panel (246.96 KB) is different from what Finder reports (254 KB).  There are three "date" fields in the LR metadata, and five that I've extracted from the EXIF data.   I'm not sure which EXIF date corresponds to the "Data Time" shown in the LR metadata.

                   

                  I don't understand how these differences arose.   I did not touch the original file outside LR.   LR is the only program that touches the file it has copied to my external drive during import.  (though it was RECOVERED from a failed disk by Data Rescue 4),


                  NOW ...


                  I understand WHY LR considers the files different (but not how they came to be so).  The question now is WHAT DO I DO ABOUT IT?   Is there any tool I can use to adjust the original (or imported) file's SIZE and EXIF data to match the file LR has?  Any way to override or change how LR does duplicate detection?

                   

                  Thanks so very much, dj.   Any ideas on how to get LR to ignore these (minor) differences would be hugely helpful.

                  • 6. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                    dj_paige Level 9

                    Maybe johnrellis might have some useful information to add here.

                     

                    With regards to the file size, if you allow Lightroom to write metadata to the XMP, then your .JPG will change size, and I assume LR has a way to record the original file size at import, and use that instead of the new file size after metadata has been written to the file.


                    I do not know which of the file times are used for comparison.

                     

                    My gut feel is that until we can find the answer to all of this, you might want to change your file handling methods. I never run into these problems because every batch of new photos come out of my camera into a brand new folder. Lightroom does this for me automatically, so there is never an issue about identifying which photos need to be imported, and which ones don't. I never go back to an older folder and either try to synchronize it or import from it, becuase I always know that those older folders have already been imported.

                    • 7. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                      Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                      Thanks again, dj.   I'd like to think LR is smart enough to remember the ORIGINAL file size and ORIGINAL file name, but perhaps not.  I  don't see either of those bits of info in the Library > Metadata display.

                       

                      I actually do put each batch of images in a new folder before I import into LR.   Those folders become my Fort Knox of the originals.  Yes, if I ever have to use them, I lose the edits made in LR, but do provide peace of mind.

                       

                      The only reason I want to try to re-import is because I lost both the main and backup copies of the files that LR itself created.  I can't be sure other than re-imortined that the (semi-?) restored files (as recovered by Data Rescue 4) are complete and intact.  It would be nice if LR had an option for duplicate detection on import that allowed for some tolerance for differences in file size and creation date.

                       

                      I may have to try to re-import each of my 100s of folders to see which are affected.  Some folders import file, others not.

                       

                      Dang!

                       

                      Rob Cole was good enough to work on a similar issue based on my input some time ago.  His LR plugin, Ottomanic

                      Importer (see http://www.robcole.com/Rob/ProductsAndServices/OttomanicImporterLrPlugin/) provides a lot of flexibility with duplicate detection criteria (such as using parts of a file name to do the match).  I'll need to spend a little more time trying to use the plugin to handle the situation I'm in.

                       

                      Thanks again for your help.

                      • 8. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                        dj_paige Level 9

                        I actually do put each batch of images in a new folder before I import into LR.   Those folders become my Fort Knox of the originals.  Yes, if I ever have to use them, I lose the edits made in LR, but do provide peace of mind.

                        Regarding this, if you put each batch of images into a new folder before you import, then where do the complications you spoke of earlier in this thread come from? This seems to eliminate the possibility of these complications.

                         

                        And your conclusion is completely wrong, you do not lose the edits made in LR (unless you handle them improperly)

                         

                        The only reason I want to try to re-import is because I lost both the main and backup copies of the files that LR itself created.

                        Can't you tell what folder the photos are to be placed in so you don't have to reimport? Yes you can. You are handling these improperly.

                         

                        I may have to try to re-import each of my 100s of folders to see which are affected.  Some folders import file, others not.

                        You are clearly going about this improperly. All you need to do is to place the backups in the same folder that they were in previously (and possibly rename them), there is no re-importing needed or required and in fact re-importing is a complete mistake. NEVER re-import!

                        • 9. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                          johnrellis Most Valuable Participant

                          I haven't followed the complete thread, but here are my thoughts on particular metadata issues you're seeing:

                                                                                                                           CreateDate              DateTimeDigitized                    DateTimeOriginal              FileModifyDate                              ModifyDate

                          ORIGINAL name: P5110178.JPG                                    2001:05:11 15:27:18    2001:05:11 15:27:18-07:00        2001:01:17 11:29:00        2011:01:17 11:29:00-07:00      2005:04:24 14:41:05 

                          After LR rename:  KRJ_0002_010511_P5110178.JPG    2001:05:11 15:27:18    2001:05:11 15:27:18-07:00        2001:05:11 15:27:18       2011:01:17 11:29:02-07:00      2005:04:24 14:41:05

                          DateTimeOriginal (what LR usually uses for its "capture date") is earlier than DateTimeDigitized (the time an image was digitally captured).  Normally digital cameras set the two fields to be identical. But if you're scanning images, you'd set DateTimeOriginal to the time the shutter was pressed and DateTimeDigitized to the time you scanned the print or film.


                          I don't know how your original file got a DateTimeOriginal earlier than DateTimeDigitized.  Cameras wouldn't do that -- most likely you used software (e.g. LR's Edit Capture Time command) to change DateTimeOriginal at some point, perhaps in 2005 (when the ModifyDate field indicates image software last changed the file contents).  The "renamed" file has the same value for DateTimeOriginal as DateTimeDigitized.  Not sure how that happened -- perhaps the original file doesn't conform completely to industry-standard formats and LR is unable to read its DateTimeOriginal.  In that case, LR will fall back to using DateTimeDigitized.


                          If you have both files still, you could upload them to Dropbox, post the link here, and I'll take a look at them (if this is still an issue for you, which it may not).

                           

                          The File SIZE in the LR metadata panel (246.96 KB) is different from what Finder reports (254 KB) [elsewhere, you report 252,883].

                           

                          This is the result of industry-wide ambiguity in the definition of KB.  LR defines KB = 1024 bytes, while OS X  Finder defines KB = 1000 bytes.  LR's 246.96 KB = Finder's 252.9 KB.

                          I'm not sure which EXIF date corresponds to the "Data Time" shown in the LR metadata.

                          The field that LR displays as "Date Time" in the EXIF metadata panel corresponds to the EXIF:DateTime field, which is defined by the industry standards as the time that the file was last modified as a result of an action by the user, whether it was pressing the shutter in a digital camera or editing the image or metadata in a program. Unfortunately, though other photo programs maintain that field, LR does not, so users often mistake the field for "capture time".  (LR did not pick the name "Date Time" -- that's the industry-standard name for the field.)

                           

                          Isn't metadata fun?


                          • 10. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                            johnrellis Most Valuable Participant
                            The field that LR displays as "Date Time" in the EXIF metadata panel corresponds to the EXIF:DateTime field,

                            Also, beware that Exiftool calls this field EXIF:ModifyDate, not EXIF:DateTime as defined by the EXIF standard.  Exiftool generally follows the industry-standard naming, but I'm not sure why it uses a different name in this case.  Having even more fun?

                            • 11. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                              Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                              Regarding this, if you put each batch of images into a new folder before you import, then where do the complications you spoke of earlier in this thread come from? This seems to eliminate the possibility of these complications.

                               

                              And your conclusion is completely wrong, you do not lose the edits made in LR (unless you handle them improperly)

                              The images come from my camera to a new folder that is the source for the import.  I put the output of the LR import on a different drive.   The complications come from the fact that I lost both the original and the backup of that external drive (but tried to recover from hardware failures with Data Rescue 4).

                               

                              I would lose the edits in LR if I had to discard the LR folder (and its corresponding files on disk), and re-import as if it were all new again.

                               

                              The only reason I want to try to re-import is because I lost both the main and backup copies of the files that LR itself created.

                              Can't you tell what folder the photos are to be placed in so you don't have to reimport? Yes you can. You are handling these improperly.

                              dj_paige wrote:

                               

                              I actually do put each batch of images in a new folder before I import into LR.   Those folders become my Fort Knox of the originals.  Yes, if I ever have to use them, I lose the edits made in LR, but do provide peace of mind.

                              Regarding this, if you put each batch of images into a new folder before you import, then where do the complications you spoke of earlier in this thread come from? This seems to eliminate the possibility of these complications.

                               

                              And your conclusion is completely wrong, you do not lose the edits made in LR (unless you handle them improperly)

                               

                              The only reason I want to try to re-import is because I lost both the main and backup copies of the files that LR itself created.

                              Can't you tell what folder the photos are to be placed in so you don't have to reimport? Yes you can. You are handling these improperly.

                               

                              I may have to try to re-import each of my 100s of folders to see which are affected.  Some folders import file, others not.

                              You are clearly going about this improperly. All you need to do is to place the backups in the same folder that they were in previously (and possibly rename them), there is no re-importing needed or required and in fact re-importing is a complete mistake. NEVER re-import!

                              I'm not following you, dj.   This is the situation in a nutshell ...

                               

                              • I have the original images on my internal hard drive as copied from the camera memory card
                              • I have a restored version of the folder into which LR imported those images (with filenames based on the original name, but augmented)
                              • LR knows the name and location of the imported files, and I can edit them in LR
                              • However, if I try to re-import from the same original folder, LR sees them as new (because of slight differences in the metadata)
                              • I don't in FACT want to re-import.  I want LR to tell me that it already knows about all my images in all my folders, and if there are any that are truly new (e.g., missing), I would import them.

                               

                              You're suggesting I "place backups in the same folder that they were in previously".  That's in effect what I did ... I used Data Rescue 4 to recover (as many as possible of the) files from the failed drive to a new drive.   I don't understand which files you think I should copy where.


                              Again, I don't want the import to succeed ... I want it to fail to find any new images.  That would tell me that my LR library is complete in comparison with the original images as copied to disk from the memory cards.

                               

                              Maybe I'm just not explaining this clearly ...

                              • 12. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                                Thanks, John ... Metadata sure is fun!

                                If you have both files still, you could upload them to Dropbox, post the link here, and I'll take a look at them (if this is still an issue for you, which it may not).

                                 

                                You've given me some very helpful background, and good hypotheses about what might have happened.   The files that I mentioned with the different meta data are here: Dropbox - KRJ images original and imported

                                 

                                The File SIZE in the LR metadata panel (246.96 KB) is different from what Finder reports (254 KB) [elsewhere, you report 252,883].

                                 

                                This is the result of industry-wide ambiguity in the definition of KB.  LR defines KB = 1024 bytes, while OS X  Finder defines KB = 1000 bytes.  LR's 246.96 KB = Finder's 252.9 KB.

                                 

                                Thanks for that explanation.  I should have remembered that complexity.   The difference in the numbers I quoted are the way Finder reports it.  Get Info from Finder (shown above and repeated here) shows the exact byte count and two different rounded numbers (253KB and 254KB "on disk")  for each file.  So confusing!

                                 

                                Screen Shot 2015-02-07 at 3.05.40 PM.JPG

                                 

                                Although this explanation of metadata is "fun", all I really want to do is achieve confidence that my reconstructed LR library is complete, with no duplicates.   Not sure I'll be able to do that!

                                • 13. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                  johnrellis Most Valuable Participant

                                  The files that I mentioned with the different meta data are here: Dropbox - KRJ images original and imported

                                  I examined the files carefully with Exiftool and didn't see any anomalies, and LR 5.7.1 was fine with importing them.  They both record that they were manipulated with Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0.  PSE 3 certainly didn't conform with current metadata standards, and it had a number of outright metadata bugs too.   Not sure if any of this helps.

                                  • 14. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                    dj_paige Level 9
                                    You're suggesting I "place backups in the same folder that they were in previously".  That's in effect what I did ... I used Data Rescue 4 to recover (as many as possible of the) files from the failed drive to a new drive.   I don't understand which files you think I should copy where.

                                    Yes, you copy the backups into the proper folder, and you rename the backups to whatever the name is in Lightroom, and that's it. Lightroom now recognizes the backup as the file to use for this image, no importing needed, no synchronizing needed. Edits remain intact. Problem solved.

                                    • 15. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                      Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                                      But, dj, the "problem" is that I don't have confidence that the restored backups are complete. I don't know for sure that all of the hundreds of folders have been properly restored.  Remember, I'm using a utility to recover as many files as possible from a failed disk. How do I know that I haven't lost some images?

                                       

                                      Because LR does detect duplicates for most of the folders, and imports no images into those holders, I know those folders are okay.   Folders for which LR does not detect duplicates are those that I am worried about, and I don't know which they are.  Worse, I don't know if some of the folders for which LR does not detect duplicates actually contain images that really need to be imported.  (These would be folders that did not properly get restored or recovered from the failed diisk.)

                                       

                                      Bottom line: if I could just have some way of proving that the restore worked, and no files were lost, then I'd be a happy guy.

                                      • 16. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                        Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                                        Here's an idea that might help me.   I'd like to compare what's now on my external drive (the (partially?) recovered files) with what LR knows about.   It would be great if I could get a list from LR (a dump of the SQLite database?) of the names of on-disk folders and files (and other relevant info like creation & modification dates and exact file size). 

                                         

                                        I could then compare that list of what LR thinks exists with what actually exists.   Then I wouldn't have to try re-importing.  I wouldn't be using LR itself to help me determine whether or not the restore worked completely.

                                         

                                        Does anyone know if a tool exists to output (some of) the contents of the LR catalog in such a readable form?  Rob Cole, perhaps?

                                        • 18. Re: Images (w/correct meta data) are in catalog and on disk, but LR 5.7 considers them new on Import
                                          Ken Jacobs345 Level 1

                                          Thanks, John.   I'm trying those out.   There's some work involved to figure out how to use either of these, but with enough time, I'm sure I'll get what I need.

                                           

                                          Thanks for the pointers.

                                           

                                          Ken