After upgrade to LR5 (Trial Mode) lots of images missing in converted catalog

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
After upgrading to LR5 (running in trial mode) there are lots of images missing.

I performed the steps as outlined below

1. Install LR5 (Trial)
2. Saved LR4 Catalog using LR4
3. Made a copy of the saved LR4 catalog
4. started LR5 and used the saved LR4 Catalog
5. Conversion started
6. Conversion completed without indicating any errors
7. in the converted catalog there are lots of images missing

Please see the screenshots attached
Images showing the scenario in LR4 and LR5

Why does LR5 mark some folders as missing respectively using the wrong name?
As far as I remember I renamed the folder in the past. Obviously LR4 treats this in a correct and LR5 in another way.









Any Ideas what went wrong in this so called "final Release"?
Photo of Klaus Weber

Klaus Weber

  • 71 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2587 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
Was your LR4 catalog corrupt when converted by LR5? You can test for catalog corruption by pressing and holding the Alt key while starting up Lightroom and that should give you a list of catalogs to open and a checkbox to enable testing the integrity. You might do this in both LR4 and LR5 to see if you can determine a problem in any of the three or four catalogs copies you mention having created as part of the backup and conversion process.

Looking at your screenshots, it is interesting that the Etappe-3 folder has a 06-09 as part of its name in the LR4 version but an 06-17 as part of its name in the LR5 version, and that date is in the future so it seems odd there would be photos, already. Is there something more complicated going on besides just a conversion that would account for a future date in LR5? Did that folder exist but was renamed in LR so a residual record might exist in LR's database that could have be cross-linked to accidentally if there is some database corruption?
Photo of Klaus Weber

Klaus Weber

  • 71 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Steve,
Thanks for your reply.

The catalogs were NOT corrupt I perfromed the check before migratinh to LR5

The Date is the german notation YYYYMMDD and it is simply a textstring. But you are right there was a typo when the entry was first imported the images. The renaming was done within LR4 as seen in the 3rd Screenshot. LR4 had no problems at all, I run into the trouble when i migrated this catalog to LR5. For me it looks like the old name is somewhere still present in the database and LR5 uses that old name instead of the new name.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2587 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
I did understand the date format as I use almost the same format for my picture folders, except I have an underscore between the Date and Photoshoot parts of the name. I was just questioning the difference in digits. It does sound like a corrupt catalog. I've never had one so I'm not sure what Test Integrity says if there is a problem or what might get missed.

However, the situation could also almost be explained if somehow the catalog copy that was converted was an old backup before the rename of the folder and if the photos for stage Etappe-3 were added first and before the backup and the photos for Etappe-1 and -2 were added afterwards.

The reason I say this is because the entire difference in the total number of photos is accounted for in your screenshots. The total difference in photos is 278 more in LR4. 277 of that is the difference of LR4's 497 and LR5's 220 in the Langenlois subfolders. The remaining single photo difference is just above in the 2013-05-26-Buchenau-BL, where LR4 says 161 and LR5 says 160.

This makes it seem like work continued longer in the LR4 catalog than the LR5 catalog, work that was a single Edit-in-PS or Export-add-to-catalog for the 05-26 photos and 3 such adds to the 06-09 photos and three more folder adds in LR4.

You might try doing the whole conversion process, again, to see if you get a different result. You also might start from a different copy of the LR4 catalog between the original and the backup. If you started with a copy of the backup, before, then start with a copy of the original this time, or the other way around. When a backup is made, one of the catalogs that results is the original and one is a copy, and perhaps the copy will be corrected when the original is corrupt and I'm not sure which one is the original and which is the copy when the backup is done. If you have not, already, you should also probably examine both the LR4 backup and LR4 original catalogs you started with to see if there is already a difference in number of photos.
Photo of Klaus Weber

Klaus Weber

  • 71 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I repeated the whole convertion process using a copy taken 5 minutes before starting the convertion with the same results.

I finally came to a solution by removing the complete langenlois folder from LR5 (not the pictures).
Then I exported only the complete Langenlois folder with LR4.
Then I imported the former exported folder in LR5 and everything looked ok.

Nevertheless I am not convinced to finally convert my huge catalog with all my images because of this behaviour.
As stated before I'm awaiting further developments and try the 5.1 when available.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2587 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
The Export Import process would have been my next suggestion. This is a question unrelated to the issue you're seeing, and more about the Catalog Import process: do the subset of imported images have their full history of LR4 edits when viewed in LR5 or just an import step for each where that state is the accumulation of all edits, without being able to see what those edits were?

If you're concerned about a full catalog conversion, you could do an experimental copy and conversion on your full catalog and see if you get the same total image counts, at least. You might also experiment with a previous backup of your LR4 catalog and see if the image counts are different.

If your catalog is not corrupt but something in LR4 isn't being converted correctly, then Adobe needs to know,and you may be the only canary in the coalmine to warn them. I hope someone asks you to send your catalog (w/o the photos or previews, of course) to examine and troubleshoot with. Actually if you felt comfortable posting a zip of your catalog (the lrcat file) to www.dropbox.com or www.yousendit.com or www.skydrive.com, I'd be interested in trying the conversion to see what would happen.
Photo of Klaus Weber

Klaus Weber

  • 71 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Will send you my 2013 lrcat file via skydrive. (the one I am having trouble with)
let you know the links in about 4 hours because I am behind my daily tasks

Ops I forgot
the ex/imported images have their full history in LR5
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2587 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
Sounds good. Your day is 7 hours closer to being over than mine.
Photo of Klaus Weber

Klaus Weber

  • 71 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Steve,
unfortunately I can't provide you with a file having trouble.
While I was testing and playing I copied/moved/deleted/renamed files and catalogs.
The recycle bin was also cleared.

I suppose there was something wrong with my catalog file which was cleared during "export to catalog"

To make it short I can't reproduce with the file available

My conclusion for scenarios like this
In case of trouble
- Export to catalog and import this finally solved my problem.

Thanks for your assistance.
Photo of Pete Green

Pete Green, Customer Advocate

  • 700 Posts
  • 126 Reply Likes
Steve, thanks for helping Klaus out!

Klaus,

If you run into further trouble with the catalog, or doing any more conversions, let us know, and if willing provide a copy of the catalog file and so we can see what was going on.

Definitely sounds like some funny behavior going on here, but hard to tell what exactly the issue was from the conversation you two have had.

Let us know if you run into the issue again.

Regards
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2587 Posts
  • 323 Reply Likes
If you're comfortable removing a very recent catalog of a prior version, then ok. It saves you from accidentally relying on it by mistake, but I probably would have renamed it to include the suffix "_corrupt" just in case I needed to refer back to it at some later point, especially if I thought LR5's conversion had been buggy. Hopefully it was only a slightly corrupt catalog and LR5's conversion was ok.