When I export a file as a tif or psd (haven't tried other formats), all metadata seems to export correctly except Altitude (geoencoding). When I look at the metadata in Bridge or Photoshop, the Altitude field is blank.
- 3 Posts
- 0 Reply Likes
Posted 2 months ago
- 345 Posts
- 121 Reply Likes
Appears to be working fine for me with Lr Classic 8.1 on Win10. I tried exporting to jpg, tif, & psd and all the resulting files contained altitude data.
The left side is the metadata displayed in Bridge for an exported file and the right is the original in Lr. One is displaying in meters and the other in feet, but both show the altitude.

Some additional description of the steps you're taking and screenshots of your LR metadata info, export options, and metadata tab in Bridge would be helpful.
Also, are you on Mac or Windows?
The left side is the metadata displayed in Bridge for an exported file and the right is the original in Lr. One is displaying in meters and the other in feet, but both show the altitude.
Some additional description of the steps you're taking and screenshots of your LR metadata info, export options, and metadata tab in Bridge would be helpful.
Also, are you on Mac or Windows?
- 3 Posts
- 0 Reply Likes
Hi Tom,
As with many things, it's simple if you know where to look, or what to look for.
The format of the Altitude data in the xmp sidecar file that correctly exports, i.e. that which is generated within Lightroom, either by typing it in or using the Lightroom tracklog facility, is:
GPSAltitude="1391107/10000"
The format of the same data from the 'external' sources is:
GPSAltitude="139.1"
While both display correctly in the Lightroom metadata area, this latter format does NOT export, while the 'official' format of couse works correctly.
Thanks for getting me the info which pointed me in the correct direction.
Mike
As with many things, it's simple if you know where to look, or what to look for.
The format of the Altitude data in the xmp sidecar file that correctly exports, i.e. that which is generated within Lightroom, either by typing it in or using the Lightroom tracklog facility, is:
GPSAltitude="1391107/10000"
The format of the same data from the 'external' sources is:
GPSAltitude="139.1"
While both display correctly in the Lightroom metadata area, this latter format does NOT export, while the 'official' format of couse works correctly.
Thanks for getting me the info which pointed me in the correct direction.
Mike
John R. Ellis, Champion
- 4058 Posts
- 1069 Reply Likes
The XMP standard requires exif:GPSAltitude to be represented a rational number of the form numerator/denominator. So it's a bug in whatever plugin or program added the altitude as "139.1" -- that doesn't conform with the standard. (LR should also ignore the non-conforming field rather than display it in the Metadata panel.)
John R. Ellis, Champion
- 4058 Posts
- 1069 Reply Likes
The relevant part of the XMP spec:
https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMP%20SDK%20Release%20cc-2014-12/XMPSpecif...
https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMP%20SDK%20Release%20cc-2014-12/XMPSpecif...
Related Categories
-
Photoshop
- 16462 Conversations
- 3774 Followers
-
Lightroom Classic CC
- 13824 Conversations
- 3171 Followers
-
Bridge
- 1624 Conversations
- 330 Followers
G Mike
Thanks for your quick reply. I'm using Windows 7 Professional, and have had the 'Altitude' problem with previous versions of Lightroom as well, for many years.
However, after seeing your results, I looked a bit deeper, and have concluded that your end is fine, but I appear to have some problem at my end. I'm using a combination of Jeffrey Friedl's “Geoencoding Support” Plugin, and sometimes additional elevation data from the Google elevation API server.
When I simply type in an elevation in Lightroom and export, the elevation transfers (to Bridge) just as you show. However, if I use the plugin or Google entry for elevation, even though it appears on the surface to be identical information, it does NOT export.
Looks like I'm going to be using a hex editor to see what's really going on with formatting 'under the hood'.
I'll post results if I find anything meaningful out.
Thanks again for your quick reply and thorough effort. I really appreciate it.
Mike