Lightroom CC 2015: Lens metadata field missing on import

  • 46
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
Since updating Photoshop and Lightroom, I've noticed that the aux:lens metadata field is being deleted from my images on import, such that there is no lens listed after import. I've determined that it's Camera Raw 9.5 that seems to be the culprit, as lens metadata is retained if I use an older version of the DNG Converter v8.8 to import the same images.

For example, I had an image shot on a Sony RX100 III at 8.8mm. If I import this image with the old version of DNG Converter, and then open the converted DNG in Photoshop, the lens is reported with the full-frame equivalent focal lengths, i.e., 24-70mm F1.8-2.8, and the raw metadata has the correct aux:Lens field (24-70mm F1.8-2.8).

Conversely, if I import the same image directly into Photoshop or Lightroom, the metadata will display the correct focal length, but will not display the lens information; Lightroom reports this only as "unknown lens," and in Photoshop the aux:Lens field is missing completely.

For now, I will use the old version of DNG Converter as a workaround, but this is inconvenient, and really should be fixed.
Photo of Byron Chin

Byron Chin

  • 14 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
  • disappointed

Posted 3 years ago

  • 46
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1549 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
Soon, pending testing. Stay tuned.
Photo of Dotsy

Dotsy

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Let's hope so.
Photo of Byron Chin

Byron Chin

  • 14 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Agreed!
Photo of Pierluigi Frigau

Pierluigi Frigau

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled LR CC 2015.5 Il filtro-Metadati-obiettivo non funziona correttamente..

Buongiorno, da quando ho installato l'ultima realease - 2015.5 , dopo
che importo una serie di raw, vado sui filtri nel modulo Libreria è
seleziono Metadati-Obiettievo, il risultato è "Obiettivo sconosciuto".
Ho provato sul portatile che ha la stessa versione è si ripete la stessa cosa.
Ho poi utilizzato la versione LR 6.2  e ripetendo le
stesse operazioni tutta funziona bene con l'indicazione corretta delle
ottiche utilizzate.
Photo of André Lambelet

André Lambelet

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
It's profoundly unsettling to (apparently) lose data from photographs as they're imported. Users who do not frequent these support sites are not likely to know why their data seems to be disappearing on import. Assurances on these boards that the data remains buried in the file are not entirely reassuring to users who convert to DNG because the conversion to DNG has a "black box" feel to it. So it would good if Adobe produced a fix quickly (three weeks and counting  for what is surely not a huge bug is long, especially for customers who must pay a subscription fee every month!) and made more of a proactive effort to keep its customers informed about the nature of the problem.
Photo of Matt Bryda

Matt Bryda

  • 9 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Why would anyone ever convert to DNG?  I can still open MRW (Minolta RAW) files from my Dimage7 in Lightroom, Canon 10D, Nikon D300, etc all are still supported.  And even if Adobe would stop supporting old cameras we could use another app like DCRAW to convert to TIFF or JPEG.

DNG is a nice but very niche format.  And, like RAW is proprietary technology.  I'd rather keep in the various RAW formats and convert if they become unsupported rather than convert to another proprietary format.
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Andre said: "So it would good if Adobe produced a fix quickly (three weeks and counting  for what is surely not a huge bug is long, especially for customers who must pay a subscription fee every month!) and made more of a proactive effort to keep its customers informed about the nature of the problem."

They are certainly quick about getting our monthly fee.  Right on time every month!
Photo of Roelof Moorlag

Roelof Moorlag

  • 136 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
In combination with Lightroom DNG offers someting no other format does: checking on file integrity with 'DNG validation'. Or in other words: peace of mind 
Photo of Dotsy

Dotsy

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm not about to save my precious photo files into a proprietary file format such as Adobe's DNG. Who know what the future brings with DNG?? 

In the past, I've loved the WMF format (a vector format for graphics) and have many many files in that format. It was a VERY popular graphic file format. But it is now an unusable format! In my MAC. I have had to purchase a converter so I can still use my WMF files - in a different format. 

I was a Windows user and also loved CorelDraw and Paint Shop Pro. As a MAC user, I can not open .CDR files nor .PSP files!! Though I just Googled and maybe... ugh!!

So, to repeat myself... who knows the future of the Adobe "proprietary" DNG file format? No one. I will not be using DNG for these reasons. 
Photo of Matt Bryda

Matt Bryda

  • 9 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
What does DNG validation bring me?  If the data is corrupt I'm screwed anyway.  Unless you run these validation procedures in the background that buys you really nothing.  Other than maybe a false sense of security.

I'd rather stick with a RAW format where the camera manufacturer could help recover, or in the case of the more popular formats (Canon, Nikon, etc) the programming community at large could help recover bad data.
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
I agree with Matt, if a file is corrupt, it is corrupt.  All "integrity checking" does is verify the obvious.
Photo of João Pinheiro

João Pinheiro

  • 9 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Having the checksum built in to the file format is indeed useful; knowing that a file is corrupt lets you know when you should restore an earlier version of the file from backup. The earlier you know this, the better.

You don't need to convert your files to DNG in order to do this though; I'm currently writing an application that indexes your files and keeps a database with a validation checksum for each one.
Photo of André Lambelet

André Lambelet

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
My initial post was not about the merits or drawbacks of DNG; it was, instead, a comment about the bug in Lightroom that seems to obscure lens information. Nevertheless, the discussion about the merits of DNG is an important one. RAW formats are proprietary and closed -- the Nikon cameras I use produce NEF files that are unique to Nikon; they are hardly open format, and should Nikon go bust (which, given the declining sales of DSLRs in the face of competition from other devices, is a real possibility), the NEF format might well be orphaned. This has happened before, and with formats that we all thought at the time might have a fairly long life. (I have old Word for DOS files archived -- and these cannot be opened by current version of Word. The same is true of a host of other file formats we blithely assumed would be readable in the future.) When I print images, I seek out papers and inks that have a long life; when I create a digital image, I hope that I can anticipate some of the changes that might render my images inaccessible. The NEF format is closed and inaccessible; the DNG standard is open and published. Does that mean that DNG is always superior to NEF? No, of course not. But I want my images to be available in five, ten, or fifty years. And so I hedge my bets -- I do both. Some will no doubt groan at this profligate use of hard drive space -- but the cost is relatively small.That said, I return to the problem of Lightroom and lens information, which seems to have nothing to do with the choice of NEF or DNG, and everything to do with a bug that Adobe needs to fix quickly.
Photo of Alexander Lindeijer

Alexander Lindeijer

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I agree, can we please stop cluttering this thread with DNG vs NEG etc discussions. I want to be informed about the fix for this and please vote to get this fix. Any other discussions are only distracting. I subscribed to this thread because I want to know when it is fixed and not get my maibox full with age old DNG vs native RAW discussions
Photo of Joe Boxer

Joe Boxer

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
As Steve posted several comments back:

Unless you need brand-new camera support, the workaround is to roll back to LR 6.4/2015.4 by uninstalling LR 6/2015 completely--but leave the preferences, don't delete them, then reinstall LR 6/2015, then the .4 update patch, both of which can be downloaded from here: 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/06/keeping-lightroom-up-to-date.html#lrcc2015

IMHO, for now this is the best solution to the problem. I mean, Adobe doesn't move fast, and even if they do come up with a "fix" who know what else they may break as evidenced in this 2015.5 update?? Go back to 2015.4, like I did, and wait until Adobe fixes this. And even then, I'd wait to see what other bugs they may introduce in the next fix.
Photo of Fahim Manzur

Fahim Manzur

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Lightroom developer view option (Ctrl + J) is not showing lens information.

Hello,

Not sure if this has been reported before. I always use developer view options (Ctrl + J) so I can see the common attributes and exif data. However, Lightroom is not showing lens information or the name of the lens used when choosing common photo settings / Lens / Camera + Lens / Camera + Lens setting. This was not happening before, but happening now with the 6.5 update.

Please can this be fixed in the next update?

Many thanks,

Manzur
Photo of nilo-uk

nilo-uk

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Massively frustrated!!
I have been holding off buying CC for months but finally went for it a few days ago and now on the first import of new images I find I loose the EXIF data for the lens in the Library module. Grrrr...
Filtering my images by lens is something I do frequently, and in the case of this job, is important.
Rant Mode = Off (now)

So, Mr Adobe, went can I expect a fix? And, will it display the lens information for the images I just imported?
Thanks
Photo of Fahim Manzur

Fahim Manzur

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I managed to uninstall LR6.5 and installed 6.4 and then just read the metadata from file again. That solved the exif lens metadata issue. Now need to wait for the next update as 6.5 is messing up metadata.
Photo of nilo-uk

nilo-uk

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I recovered my previous (Lr 5.7.1) library and went back to working there - thus wasting my subscription for now...
Hence my frustration!
Photo of Walter Madej

Walter Madej

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled LENS information missing in EXIF.

Lightroom CC 2015.5. Nikon NEF files loaded after 3-12-15 do not have the LENS information in the EXiF file showing in the Library module for pictures taken with the same lens and camera. The LENS information does show in the exif files when looking at the picture on the camera. What has Adobe lost?
Photo of nilo-uk

nilo-uk

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Adobe has lost the ability to read/import/display the lens information in the NEF file in the Library module.
In Lr 5.7.1 I can see the lens model in the Library - Metadata view. In Lr CC 2015.5 I cannot (unless imported before 2015.5) when using the same NEF file.
Interestingly, in the Develop module, when applying Lens Correction it picks up the lens model automatically.
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Almost a month now and still no fix for a broken update!!!!!!  But, Adobe has not delayed charging me right on time, without any hesitation for my subscription!!!!!!!

I am a very unhappy camper Adobe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Photo of Matt Bryda

Matt Bryda

  • 9 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Thesis getting ridiculous.  Has anyone gotten a refund from Adobe or their credit card?  
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
Like that is going to happen!!  This has definitely made me consider dropping the subscription and looking for alternatives when I can do it without penalties.  Then again, by that time Adobe already has my money and doesn't care!  As I said, I am a very unhappy customer!!!!!!!!
(Edited)
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1549 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
It turns out that there are a coupe of newly announced cameras that the coming dot release would need to support. It took a little bit longer than the usual dot releases that had just the bug fixes. We're at the final stage to certify the build for release. Thank you for being patient. It is just unfortunate in terms of timing. We have zero influence over when the camera vendors will release their cameras.
Photo of André Lambelet

André Lambelet

  • 2 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I am pleased to hear that fix is coming. I am, however, taken aback by the tone of your post and the suggestion that the timing of this release is in the hands of camera vendors. I bought a program that worked; Adobe, not the camera manufacturers, then broke it. Adobe is responsible for this, Adobe made it difficult for customers who continue to have to pay for the product because it's on a subscription model, and Adobe should have fixed this much more quickly.
This may not be the biggest issue in the world, and I do not want to make mountains out of lens data molehills - but  I -- like many other people who use the program and rely on lens information in our workflows -- had to scramble to find a workaround, which cost me a few hours of time. So -- please. When you acknowledge a problem, issue a mea culpa. Then fix the problem. And avoid, please, the (perhaps unintentional) dumping of responsibility for your issue onto third parties. Thank you.
Photo of Colin Barnett

Colin Barnett

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
As a manager of software development, I can tell you that putting out a release is a big deal, involving an insane amount of testing and verification. Each release carries a risk. If you can put out one release instead of two by delaying the release a few weeks, that is generally a better option. That said, some releases have to be rushed out because they contain critical fixes. This is not such a release, because there is a workaround to the lens exif problem. What I would have liked to have seen more of during this episode is more comments from people like Chen giving the community updates on the progress and schedule.
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
When one pays for a service, one expects reliability and promptness in fixing issues if
changes break something.  That is what a subscription is, a service!  As I said, Adobe was VERY PROMPT in charging me for this service!!!
Photo of Joe Boxer

Joe Boxer

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Apparently that's what they should have done with the .5 release so we wouldn't be in the predicament in the first place.
Photo of Byron Chin

Byron Chin

  • 14 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
In other words, the official Adobe response is "we don't plan on fixing this issue until the next major dot release." If someone from Adobe had posted this in response to my original post a month ago, this would have been a disappointing, but at least honest and understandable statement given the underlying business and software development factors. It also would have allowed customers to decide for themselves whether this was an acceptable delay given their current needs, and whether rolling back was an acceptable workaround for them. But that didn't happen. Instead, we got the full story only after one month and a few vague "we're working on it, stay tuned" promises in the interim. I'm not at all surprised that this is how it unfolded, but I don't appreciate the lack of transparency.

At the moment, I'm willing to put up with the workaround and (begrudgingly) continue to pay for CC, because the older DNG converter still works with my existing gear. But I have a hard stop: I doubt the workaround will work for the D500 that I plan on upgrading to. I hope the fix is out by the time I get one, otherwise that could be enough to make me migrate off of Adobe software.
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1549 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
Unfortunately I cannot comment on the exact timing of the dot release update, but it should happen fairly quickly, in the next week or two.
Photo of lhiapgpeonk

lhiapgpeonk

  • 51 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Will there be a possibility to re-import just the lens metadata? Re-importing metadata usually reeks havoc with development settings (read: voids them) and I want to avoid that.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1147 Posts
  • 278 Reply Likes
@lhiapgpeonk The way to prevent this problem is simple - first save the metadata back to the files. That's Ctrl S on Windows and Cmd S on Mac.
(Edited)
Photo of nilo-uk

nilo-uk

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
John - that sounds as though it could be useful but you mention saving metadata back to the file whereas I and others would want to retain the develop settings when re-importing.
Please could you clarify.
Thanks
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1549 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
Here are my recommendation to recover the missing lens metadata once you get the next update:
1. In the library module, filter and find all the photos that you imported into Lr since the Lr 6.5 release.
2. Select them all (Ctrl/CMD+A)
3. Invoke Metadata>Save Metadata to Files menu command to save the latest metadata (that includes the latest develop settings) to the files.
4. Invoke Metadata>Read Metadata from Files menu command to read the latest metadata back, including the missing lens metadata.
Photo of nilo-uk

nilo-uk

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you Simon.
Photo of lhiapgpeonk

lhiapgpeonk

  • 51 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Thank you, I will give that a try :-)
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1147 Posts
  • 278 Reply Likes
"John - that sounds as though it could be useful but you mention saving metadata back to the file whereas I and others would want to retain the develop settings when re-importing. Please could you clarify. Thanks"

The thing is,  if you first save metadata back to the file, you are saving develop settings too. So when you "re-import" (actually, Read Metadata) you will then be importing up-to-date develop settings too.
Photo of Stuart Peel

Stuart Peel

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi.  Just noticed the same behaviour,  but only after the middle of March this year.  Info is in the lens panel in 'Develop', module, and in Bridge, but not in Library 'metadata' filter or  in 'view' options.  Tried to save and read metadata, but no change.  Frustrating?  You bet!
Photo of Jaak Thomas Arendi

Jaak Thomas Arendi

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Fixing "unkown lens" without re-importing.

As a Nikon and Canon user, I've found a lot of images from the Nikons with "unknown lens". Is there a way to fix this, without actually re-importing the images? I do use the lens meta data a lot and it's very cumbersome to not being able to filter on a specific lens.
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4116 Posts
  • 1085 Reply Likes
In the original topic, Jaak received the workaround from Victoria Bampton.
Photo of Wolfram Eigenbrodt

Wolfram Eigenbrodt

  • 2 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
One month now... and it's not fixed.
That's dissapointing and ridiculous.
Photo of Marius Ruosch

Marius Ruosch

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
i had the same issue with os x 10.11.3 and Lightroom CC 2015.5 and a Nikon d750.

After downgrading to 2015.4 the lens information is back. 
>>http://www.lightroomqueen.com/how-do-i-roll-back-to-lightroom-2015-1-1-or-lightroom-6-1-1/
=> Just go straight to the 2015.4 update after the initial installation


Firstly just for the new imported files, the ones since February (when i updated to 2015.5) haven't.

But you can easily get them back with a right click and ">>Metadata>>Read Metadata from File".

If this doesn't work you may need to write the metadata first to a xmp file
(Catalog Settings >> Metadata >> check: Automatically write changes to xmp)
Be sure to wait first that LR wrote all xmp files bevor restoring, otherwise you could loose the adjustments...

for me this worked fine...
Photo of Wolfram Eigenbrodt

Wolfram Eigenbrodt

  • 2 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
2015.4 does not support the Nikon D5 and D500.
This is not an option for me.
Photo of McLion

McLion

  • 24 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
A patch should be due soon - please be patient.
Photo of AlexNathan

AlexNathan

  • 1 Post
  • 4 Reply Likes
My patience is running out, we've been waiting for a month now!
Photo of Ellwood Nonnemacher

Ellwood Nonnemacher

  • 35 Posts
  • 18 Reply Likes
But they collected their subscription fee without any delay what so ever!!!
Photo of Jacques Demers

Jacques Demers

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I agree with you. The last 2 updates were a mess.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15249 Posts
  • 2194 Reply Likes
Official Response
This should be fixed in the Lightroom CC 2015.5.1/6.5.1 update that was released today: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2016/04/lightroom-cc-2015-5-1-now-available.html

See this document for parsing the lens metadata: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/lens-metadata-hidden-on-some-cameras-in-lightroom-6-5.html
Photo of JaapV

JaapV

  • 30 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thank you! I read about it in Nikon Club Nederland's forum.
Funny thing: all my missing lens data have meanwhile reappeared, without any intervention on my part.
Even more outlandish: my Lr CC version is still the same 2015.5 (without the added ".1") and my last update was 42 days ago. Perhaps my camera type (Nikon D800) has something to do with this?
Or have you been working some Adobe Magic?
(Needless to say, I am NOT going install this ".1" update for now, if I can help it.
(Edited)
Photo of Jaak Thomas Arendi

Jaak Thomas Arendi

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just installed and verified it, it works! :) But I'd really like a script that takes care of the 10000+ images that have the "unkown lens" attribute. Manually saving and re-reading this amount is not ok.
Photo of Matt Bryda

Matt Bryda

  • 9 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Highlight them all and follow the second document posted by Jeffrey.  I only had about a hundred images but it worked just fine for them.
(Edited)
Photo of Jaak Thomas Arendi

Jaak Thomas Arendi

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sorry, missed the link there. Seems to be fine-ish now.
Photo of Kevin Lisota

Kevin Lisota

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks for finally fixing this Adobe.

I have to say though, your fix is sloppy at best. I actually have to find the affected files and run a manual process on all of them to read the missing lens EXIF data?

I've uploaded 15,000 or more photos to Lightroom since this was broken. I fail to see why the fix couldn't have gone back and cleaned up after itself automatically. It can't be hard to automatically parse photos that have lens EXIF data and read the missing bits into the library automatically.

Your dev team can do better.
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1549 Posts
  • 502 Reply Likes
The auto cleanup script would involve heuristics to determine which set of photos needs to be updated. The heuristics cannot cover all possible user cases and therefore could do undesirable things in certain cases. 
Photo of Matt Bryda

Matt Bryda

  • 9 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
How so?  Simple - if it detects "unknown lens" try to reimport. If the data isn't available return unknown just as before.  If it is there import with the correct data.

I'm not really a programmer but it seems simple to do.
Photo of damien Tournaire

damien Tournaire

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled metadata don't display lense setting.
Photo of damien Tournaire

damien Tournaire

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
doing the process of saving the metadata to xmp file added 10000+ files on my computer.
Can I clean up those files after I read metadata from the file?
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4116 Posts
  • 1085 Reply Likes
Yes, you can safely delete the XMP sidecar files.  The catalog file contains the "truth" for all the photo develop settings and metadata.
Photo of Joe Boxer

Joe Boxer

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I'm confused. If this is the case what's the point of having the sidecar files? Can LR be setup not to create them in the first place? Thanks!
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4116 Posts
  • 1085 Reply Likes
By default, LR does not create XMP sidecars.  They get created for raw files under two circumstances:

1. You do Metadata > Save Metadata To File.

2. You set the option Catalog Settings > Metadata > Automatically Write Changes Into XMP.

As I mentioned above, the "truth" about develop settings and metadata is always stored in the catalog file.  But creating sidecars can be useful for a couple of reasons:

- They allow the raw photo's metadata to be accessed by other programs.

- They act as a last-ditch backup in case the catalog file gets corrupted, either by user error, faulty hardware, operating-system bugs, or (very, very rarely in the last many years) a LR bug.   I try to keep my regular backups active and test them frequently, but I prefer to also have XMP files just in case.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2668 Posts
  • 343 Reply Likes
There is a LR preference of Automatically Write Changes Into XMP that you can enable or not.  If you don't have that enabled then you can manually write the changes.
Photo of Joe Boxer

Joe Boxer

  • 17 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thanks John.
I use ON1 and Photoshop to edit files exported from LR. I'm assuming that one or both of these programs need the XMP files?
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 4116 Posts
  • 1085 Reply Likes
When you invoke Edit In Adobe Photoshop, or Open As Smart Object In Photoshop, no XMP files will be created.

Re ON1: I'm pretty LR passes a TIFF, rather than a raw file, to the ON1 tools, with all the metadata embedded inside the TIFF, so no XMP is created.  But I don't have ON1, so I can't verify.