Lightroom Classic: Exporting EXIF with high "Transform" value

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I just encountered a weird thing. My website complains with just TWO out of many photos I posted (JPG from LR), that it can't read the EXIF data. Looking with IrfanView, there are no EXIF data in these two (they got exported in one batch with all the others).
I noticed that these two photos are heavily transformed (Vertical -65), whereas all the others, that got some transformation (not all but quite some) don't have such high values and got exported with their EXIF. So. I played around with the vertical value and found out, that the EXIF data gets exported up to the value -39 and from -40 on it's missing. Reproducible.
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Tom Mickow

Tom Mickow

  • 514 Posts
  • 210 Reply Likes
I haven't been able to reproduce it in Lr 9 on Win10 with any of my raw or jpg originals.
What version of Lr & OS are you running?
What are your originals - raw, jpg, from what camera, etc?
Are you having the same issue with images from other cameras/formats?
Are you sure you don't have an export preset or plug in that's set to remove the metadata? 
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7529 Posts
  • 1724 Reply Likes
I have not been able to reproduce either using LrC 9.0 and Win 10 -1903.  The information Tom requests might help us duplicate your issue.
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Windows 10.1903 Enterprise
Lightroom Classic 9.0
The source files are Canon CR2 with 50 megapixels.
I could reproduce it several times without fail. So, I am a bit surprised.
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1738 Posts
  • 601 Reply Likes
What are your steps to reproduce the bug? Are you using some ftp publish service? What are the export settings? Could you share a raw file and the associated imp?
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's not about the ftp. I can reproduce the behaviour by just exporting the picture as JPG to my disk and look at it with IrfanView.

--
Off topic: How does this forum work, do the participants of this thread get all new entries as mail notification? Because I replied to two questions in one new post, not sure if that works as expected?
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Since two people couldn't reproduce it, I tried again, and it just went as described: -39 - EXIF - yes, -40 - EXIF nopes.
So, since I tried those two pictures that caused the trouble in the first place, I thought, let's try another one. I selected some random picture, that I did not export previously. There I couldn't reproduce it! I even copied with "Previous" the changes I've made to that selected photo.
So somehow it must be that RAW together with the vertical transform setting.

I could provide the RAW and the end result, yes. How? Should I upload it to my server and provide a link?
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1738 Posts
  • 601 Reply Likes
For sharing the photo and the xmp, you could use the Creative Cloud sync or other dropbox style sharing service and share the link.
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Um, I don't have any dropbox thing, so I zipped the two files and uploaded it to my server.
https://www.safaribears.de/Stuff/France2019.zip

Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5109 Posts
  • 1445 Reply Likes
With JPEGs exported from your sample photo in my LR 9.0, ExifTool shows EXIF data when Vertical = -39 but not when Vertical = -40. 

The -39 JPEG has two APP13 Photoshop segments, while the -40 JPEG has three.  It appears that the Photoshop Thumbnail field increased in size from 64346 to 64717 bytes between the two photos, just enough to require a third APP13 segment.  It's likely this third segment is related to LR getting confused and omitting or overwriting the APP1 segment containing the EXIF fields.
Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Ah, so it's not just me and my Lightroom :-)
Do we see that as a bug that needs to be fixed, or is this a case of "It's supposed to be like that"?
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5109 Posts
  • 1445 Reply Likes
It's definitely a bug in how LR is writing the metadata.
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1738 Posts
  • 601 Reply Likes
Thanks for the report. We'll investigate and log bug if necessary.
Photo of David Franzen

David Franzen, Employee

  • 109 Posts
  • 28 Reply Likes
We are working on a fix for this. Thank you for reporting this and for providing samples!

For now, a workaround is to open the photo in Photoshop and save it as a JPEG from there... yes, I know this is not awesome.

This will be more likely to happen with photos that are square (and square-ish) and have a lot of subject detail. The reason why different transforms make a difference is probably because some end up pushing more detail into the final image bounds than other transforms.

Photo of Jürgen

Jürgen

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you, this is great. So in the end it's just a question of file size, huh?
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Official Rep

  • 7529 Posts
  • 1724 Reply Likes
Updates to Lightroom Classic, Camera Raw, and the Lightroom Ecosystem were released yesterday and contain a fix for this issue.  Please install the appropriate update and see if it solves this problem. You can read more about the updates here.

Thank you for your patience.