The LR plugin uses DateTimeDigitized as Date Taken if the DateTimeOriginal is not present, the Web Upload will leave the Date Taken blank. Further note that replacement upload of the image does not change this date even from Lightroom, despite it using the upload date in the initial upload. (Note I did not test manual changes on the SM web interface to see if it sets modified date). The Web Upload on the other hand will ONLY set the Modified Date to the DateTime field within the image, and does not use either the upload or other dates if that is missing.
The LR plugin appears to set the Date Modified to the upload date (or something like that), as opposed to any metadata field from the image itself. And in any case, it is natural that a user would believe that a replacement replaces the data, at least data that cannot be (and was not) editing on Smugmug itself.Ģ) The data is inconsistently updated between the plugin and web upload, as shown in the following table. It is necessary to delete and re-upload, which is not terribly practical in Lightroom unless one has a 1:1 correspondence between folders or collections and publishing collections (after all, the purpose of a publishing collection is to, well, collect and if one has to separately create a collection to preserve the publish collection to delete and re-upload. A web upload "replace", or a lightroom metadata update, OR a lightroom republish does not update these. But I won't dwell on that further.ġ) This data is not replaced on updates.
While I guess a feature request, I'd offer than with today's high burst rates, omission of the subsecond field is a real deficiency notably for sorts by capture date/time. code 0x9004, original time or create time perhaps, with subsecond field 0x9292.Ĭ) DateTime, sometimes called Modify date, with subsecond time 0x9290.įirst, as best I could tell in any test, the SubSecond codes are ignored by Smugmug. code 0x9003, sometimes called Capture date time, and associated subsecond field 0x9291.ī) DateTimeDigitized, i.e.
To test, I wrote an image generator that would explicitly set six EXIF fields in various combinations. Here is what I've found in testing today (I hear things changed recently but cannot say, I did all this on ). I'd like to suggest that collectively this rises to the level of a bug. This leads to the possibility of some serious confusion for users. Smugmug and/or Lightroom and/or the Smugmug lightroom plugin do not behave in a consistent fashion, in my opinion, though it is a bit unclear how much of this is due to Adobe vs. There have been several discussions on this and I thought I would do some experimentation.
0 kommentar(er)
