Lightroom: Flickr / Smugmug Publish should not have to resend the image if only meta data has changed.

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
I appreciate this is a big change... but when only meta data is changed on an image, for example keywords, there is no reason to have to actually republish the image itself to Flickr or SmugMug etc.

I suspect the API for both these services will allow the update of just the meta data for an already published image and LR already knows if an image is already published.

If I change my keyword hierarchy, it can result in a very large exercise (days!) of republishing my photos.

Suggestion - whatever internal LR flag or logic criteria is being used to signal that a re-publish is required should be split into two flags or criteria – “Image republish required” and “Meta Data Update” required. For example if it is currently based on an overall image “last updated” date then split this into “last develop update date” and “last meta update date”.

The thumbnail grid should also support having a section showing those images which only have the Meta Data Update required status.
Photo of Alan Smith

Alan Smith

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 6 years ago

  • 1
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
The shipped publish services are really demos.

Just use http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-good...
Photo of Alan Smith

Alan Smith

  • 26 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
“The shipped publish services are really demos” - really!

I have seen this positioning statement made before and if it is officially the Adobe position on it then whilst I have some sympathy with it, it is in my view a totally unreasonable position for Adobe to take, it is appalling customer messaging and does the Adobe brand no good whatsoever.

My sympathy is that presumably it was only included (by engineering) to “show the way” to other plugin developers to create their own – as Smugmug, Friedl, etc do. However, this message does not seem to have reached your marketing department who have positioned it very high on the features list ... “streamlined integration with online photo-sharing sites, including Facebook, SmugMug, and Flickr”. Perhaps it should only have been included in the SDK and offered as an optional download – then I could accept its demo status – but currently it is not sold as such.

Adobe shouldn’t sell the product with this so prominent in the marketing and include it “in the delivered box” and then tell customers who raise problems or suggestions on it that it is just a demo. What else might turn out to be just a demo – the Spot heal?

If I buy a new car advertised as having an advanced radio in it as a major feature, I do not expect to be told later that it is just a demo, and that I should rip the radio out and fit some (however good or cheap) third party product! I doubt this would meet your expectations either.

Don’t get me wrong ... I’m not “Mr Angry” about it... I’m just trying to give some feedback from a customer’s perception. If you work for Adobe (or indirectly) then please pass this on to your marketing people!