Lightroom: Keyword options no longer available in LR4

  • 11
  • Problem
  • Updated 8 years ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
When one has a keyword hierarchy:

In LR3, one could skip a level in selecting which keywords are exported. For example in the hierarchy A, B, C (where A is top parent) one could set A=Include on export, B=Do not include on Export + Export Containing, and C=Include on Export + Export Containing. In this way, on a photo with only keyword "C", on export we'd have A and C but not B.

In LR4 all my LR3 keywords that had this pattern were changed during catalog conversion and I can no longer set this pattern. Turning off "Include on Export" now turns off "Export Containing" and "Export Synonyms" rather than leaving them alone as in LR3.

This is a HUGE problem for me as I have my entire keyword hierarchy (over 3,000 KW's) designed to allow skipping levels. In addition, I have cases where the actual Keyword is for my workflow and convience but but the synonym is what I want exported (not the actual KW) which I can also no longer seem to do.

See screen shots below



Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
  • Really Angry

Posted 8 years ago

  • 11
Photo of Jason Hochstadt

Jason Hochstadt

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
This doesn't help with tagging when exporting to Flickr. Metadata Wrangler does affect the keywords written in the Exif data, so my private keyword is stripped out of there, but it still shows up as a tag in Flickr.

Note that I'm publishing to Flickr using Jeffrey's Export to Flickr Plugin with a Publish Service. The tags are controlled by the "Flickr: Metadata Export" section in the service settings, and don't obey the Metadata Wrangler filtering. So all I can do is enable or disable creating tags from all of the keywords.
Photo of Adam Blake

Adam Blake

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I have also run into some issues using this work around to export to Flickr. I have not been able to strip the keyword when exporting with the default plugin but I have had success with stripping keywords when exporting new photos with Jeffrey's Export to Flickr Plugin. No luck with modified photos though. Not sure how our settings are different though.
Photo of Adam Blake

Adam Blake

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
With Jeffrey's Export to Flickr Plugin if you uncheck the explicitly send keywords from lightroom's database box in the metadata management section of the service settings this seems to result in metadata wrangler stripping keywords from newly uploaded photos.

Photo of Jason Hochstadt

Jason Hochstadt

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
i was uploading a modified photo, not a new photo. I tried unchecking the explicitly send keywords option and then it didn't send any new keywords with the photo. I added a new keyword that was set to include on export and it showed up in the exif data but not as a tag.
Photo of Adam Blake

Adam Blake

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes that is my experience as well. This method does seem to work with new photos though. If you go to Flickr extras in plugin extras to resend metadata you can send new keywords as tags but metadata wrangler won't work with this tool.
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Jeffery, Benjamin,

Can you please provide an update from Adobe on this serious problem? Just marking it "Not A Problem" is quite annoying as it is certainly a serious problem that is cuasing a lot of people a great deal of time, effort, frustration, and major degradation to the efficiencies of our workflow. Every time I look at this thread and see "Not a Problem" in bright yellow on the header it makes my blood boil.

I know that Adobe feels making this change improved "privacy" protection. However, at some point Adobe must weigh the cost of any change against the percieved benefit. After all, if you REALLY want to to eliminate privacy concerns, then remove the ability to export photos from LR altogether. That would certainly quell all possibility of privacy breaches, but it would also render the product totally useless.

Each "improvement" of any sort must be weighed against the cost of that improvement in terns of usability and functionality. Is the percieved benefit worth the cost in those terms? I think it's obvoius that in the case of these Keywords the cost to your customers is much greater than the percieved benefit of improved privacy.

What makes this so frustrating is that there are several approaches proposed in this thread which would address the privacy concern, would not be all that costly to implement and would still allow your customers to make full use of LR's keywording without time consuming manual work arounds or the purchasing of 3rd party software that may or may not solve the problems.

Can you please remove the "not a problem" tag on this thread and let us know what Adobe is doing to address the issue?

Thanks -- Dan
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5048 Posts
  • 1424 Reply Likes
It's unfortunate the moderator marked this a "Not a problem", since it clearly is a problem for many people, and it understandably and needlessly annoys them.

Topics in this forum can be marked with a number of statuses; here's my understanding of the relevant ones:

Not a problem -- the user has reported a problem but in fact there is an adequate solution or product feature that the user wasn't aware of.

Under consideration -- Adobe is considering the idea or problem solution but hasn't made a decision yet.

Not planned -- Adobe understands what the user's issue is but has decided not to address it in the foreseeable future.

Based on Jeffrey Tranberry's response last month, "The team is looking to see if both the old behavior and the new behavior can be supported", it would seem that "Under consideration" would be a more appropriate status.
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
I agree, let's see if Adobe agree's ;-)
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
It's "not a problem" by-definition since it was reported as a bug (red exclamation point) when in reality it was done on purpose.

My suggestion is to let this thread die and instead start a feature-request thread ("idea" - yellow light bulb) asking for a version of one of the solutions offered above to be implemented, and reference this thread from that one.
Photo of Jostein Øksne

Jostein Øksne

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thanks John and Dan for keeping this thread alive. Fingers crossed Adobe still reads it too... :-)
Photo of John Cothron

John Cothron

  • 21 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
For those of you that think we should do as Lee Jay suggested above, I started and idea thread two days ago here :

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

*someone replied and referenced this thread actually
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 994 Posts
  • 137 Reply Likes
Oops...sorry John, I hadn't noticed!
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Probably a good idea to keep both alive. There's a lot to be said about the "squeeky" wheel syndrome.
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi all, I looked at the "idea request" posted by John and found that it only addresses the "Synonym" portion of this problem. So I added another "idea Request" to address the "skip level" problem (which for me is more significant, although the synonym issue is also problematic)

The URL for my post is http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Thaks -- Dan
Photo of Jean-Pol Matheys

Jean-Pol Matheys

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This feature change is a fundamental problem for me. I want my keywords to export exactly as they did. I spent quite a bit of time making my keyword hierarchy produce what I needed, exactly what I needed.

Could we please have a general option "Legacy keyword hierarchy functionalities" ?

Adobe, you cannot simply leave this as it is.
Photo of Gerald Rowe

Gerald Rowe

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
WTF!!! Just came across this unwanted behaviour in LR4 - when were we going to be told? And, I think the 'reason' given by Adobe is rubbish. They have *broken* the keywording by removing functionality, dumbing it down ... by all means try to help people, but DON'T BREAK THINGS to do it!

We had the power to request what we wanted, and now Adobe has reduced the functionality in the program, and then tells us that it's 'not a problem' ...

CORRECTION. IT IS A PROBLEM

As so often before, I find Adobe's arrogance breathtaking.

Please please please - rethink your behaviour and let the program work again the way it used to, that gave us more flexibility.

And, in the future, please do not again alter our keyword metadata (or any other data we have put into the system) without telling us.
Photo of Ole Jørgen Liodden

Ole Jørgen Liodden

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi Gerald

I agree 100%. This is a PROBLEM for many photographers. I "downgraded" back to LR 3.6 for some weeks when I found this keyword structure changes, but since I need to develop raw-files from D4 and D800 I have to use the LR 4.1. I really don't like it, but I have to or move to Aperture...

ADOBE : please give us the same keyword functionality as in LR 3.6 in the LR 4.2 version!
Photo of John R. Ellis

John R. Ellis, Champion

  • 5048 Posts
  • 1424 Reply Likes
Dear moderator(s): Please change the status of this thread from “Not a problem” to “Under consideration” or “Not planned”. Leaving it marked “not a problem” is needlessly antagonizing customers. Jeffrey Tranberry (Adobe Customer Advocate) said it was under consideration as of two months ago.

This thread was marked “not a problem” because of ambiguity over the meaning of “problem” in this feedback forum. To users, “problem” clearly means any aspect of the application that is causing them frustration, inability to complete some task, inefficiencies, lost work, etc. When users submit feedback here, they typically use that meaning when marking their posts “problems”.

But at least one moderator here appears to think “problem” should be defined more narrowly, from a software developer’s perspective – the application isn’t working the way the product team intended it. Developers typically call this a “bug”. The moderator marked this thread “not a problem” using this developers’ definition.

Since this is a forum for users to communicate with Adobe, it would seem more practical to use the definition of “problem” as it's commonly understood by users and, indeed, how it is typically used in the hundreds of posts here marked “problem”. The moderators could insist on using the narrower definition, but that is likely just to lead to the bad feelings evidenced in this thread.
Photo of Benjamin Warde

Benjamin Warde, Employee

  • 488 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
"Dear moderator(s): Please change the status of this thread from “Not a problem” to “Under consideration” or “Not planned”. Leaving it marked “not a problem” is needlessly antagonizing customers."

Agreed.

-Ben
Photo of Jean-Pol Matheys

Jean-Pol Matheys

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Well. well, well ... are we going to recover our most useful keyword functionality or are we to drop Lr and go Aperture ?
Photo of Ole Jørgen Liodden

Ole Jørgen Liodden

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Jean-Pol - Very good question!
I'm also moving to Aperture soon if the keyword functionality in LR4 is not getting better again (or as it was in LR3.6)....
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1334 Posts
  • 366 Reply Likes
So does Aperture have this "useful keyword functionality"? I'd love to know where. And when you apply a bottom level keyword, does Aperture infer that its top level "grandparent" keyword should also be applied? If so, I can't figure it out. Or do Aperture keywords have synonyms? Maybe I've missed something there too, but be careful what you wish for.....
Photo of Jean-Pol Matheys

Jean-Pol Matheys

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I wish Lr 4.x to reinstate the keyword functionality of Lr 3.6 !

Haven't bought Lr 4 yet, so I'll put my money where my mouth is, but I sure hope Adobe will listen !
Photo of Ole Jørgen Liodden

Ole Jørgen Liodden

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I 100% agree with you Jean-Pol
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Randolf,

If I understand the scenario In your example you have a parent KW of “People” and within that you have subordinate KW’s of “family” and “Idiots”. Then you export both photos. Evidently on KW’s “Family” and “Idiots” you have “export this KW turned off which in LR3 keeps the "export containing" turned on and in LR4 turns "export containing" off. So in in LR3 when you export Photo_1 and Photo_2 you get keywords “George” and “People” but in LR4 you just get "George". Then it seems you re-import the renamed edited photos.

In LR3 each one will have keywords “People” and “George” – of course losing the fact that one of the George’s was a family member and one was an idiot as you chose not to include that knowledge when you exported. In addition, since the same KW “George” is used to identify two different people (one a family member and one an idiot) when you re-import LR has no way of knowing that these are two different things so puts them both in a single "George". This seems to work in a common sense and logical manner.

However, in LR4 everything you said also happens but you also lose the fact that George is a is a member of the “People” set.

So far I don’t see your point as to why the LR4 version is preferable as it seems to loose information (i.e. "People") that I assume you wanted to keep where as LR3 kept it?

When you re-import your edited images, what is your desired result? If you want the re-imported images to have the exact same KW’s as the originals, then neither LR3 nor LR4 will do that unless you allow them to export “Idiot” and “Family” which then exposes you to revealing that information if you happen to export those photos for external use.

Dan
Photo of Ole Jørgen Liodden

Ole Jørgen Liodden

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I've just installed the new Adobe LR 4.2 release candidate and it finally seems to fix our problem! Under "Bugs Corrected in the Lightroon 4.2 Release Candidate" one of the bugs (yes they call it a "bug") are: "Parents and synonyms of “do not export” keywords also do not export." With my tests so far it seems to WORK!! Have anyone els tested 4.2 RC ??

I need to test it more to be convinced it is fixed, but it looks promising. Thanks to Adobe for taking this problem serious!
Photo of Jason Hochstadt

Jason Hochstadt

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Where can I find 4.2 RC? I'm assuming I have to re-convert my LR3 library to get the per keyword options to carry over? When I initially converted with 4.0, it looked like they all got forced to "valid" options.
Photo of Ole Jørgen Liodden

Ole Jørgen Liodden

  • 15 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
LR 4.2 RC http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/li...
I don't know how your LR 3 Library will work with an Release Candidate (RC)
Photo of Jason Hochstadt

Jason Hochstadt

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Sweet! I didn't have to reconvert the library. All the keyword settings were intact, minus the one or two I messed around with to try and work around the issue initially. Thanks Adobe!
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
I concur.

Yeahhhhhhhhh Adobe. I just installed LR 4.2RC and the keyword export functionality has been restored to the way it worked in versions prior to 4.0. Not only that, but Kewords where I had "Include on Export" turned off and one or both of "Export Containing Keywords" and "Export Synonyms" turned on in LR3 prior to upgrading to LR4 have now reverted back to what they were in LR3. I did not have to do anything other than install LR 4.2RC and my old KW's had reverted to their prior (LR3) settings. This is wonderful!

The only work I need to do is deal with KW's I've added (or modified?) since converting to LR4 and then undo all the work around KW changes I've made since moving to 4.0.

Thanks Adobe!
Photo of Benjamin Warde

Benjamin Warde, Employee

  • 488 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
We generally don't mark these forum threads as resolved until the fix is available in a final release (not just an RC), since it's always conceivable we could encounter some horrendous bug, or similar disaster, that would force us to remove the fix from the final release.

But having said that, yes, this is fixed in the 4.2 RC. When you uncheck "Include on Export" the other two checkboxes also uncheck (a nod to the privacy concerns), but they do not gray out, and can be re-checked. The three checkboxes now operate independently of each other.

Thanks,
Ben
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Thanks Ben,

If you hear that this "fix' for some reason will not be in the LR 4.2 produciton release can you please alert this thread?

Thanks -- Dan
Photo of Benjamin Warde

Benjamin Warde, Employee

  • 488 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
I don't know... do you promise not to shoot the messenger? ;-)

-Ben
Photo of Jean-Pol Matheys

Jean-Pol Matheys

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Greaaaaaaaaaaat !

Many thanks, Adobe !

Just ordered LR 4 and will be upgrading as soon as I get it.

Thanks, guys !
Photo of Howard Lim

Howard Lim

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I have this similar problem and believe the issue has to do with LR3 users who are not-very-clever. If they believe a keyword parent should NOT be exported, then that keyword should NOT be in that hierarchy in the first place. For example, using the file-path in the footer of a document would expose the naming structure of your file which is very obvious. They should use Collections for that purpose.

The problem with this issue in LR4 is now for people who have very detailed, structured sets of images, it is now very difficult to maintain a useful keyword vocabulary.

In my case, I have images of equipment and engineering related items. For example, I will have keyword parent-child groups like 'Railway', 'Type', 'Manufacturer', 'Model', 'Sub-Group Number'.

I do not want Keywords 'Type', for that means nothing by itself, but excluding this will not include 'Railway', which is means a lot.

To me, this 'bug' is really a defect in the masses' way of thinking...
Photo of dan

dan

  • 61 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hi Howard,

You do realize the Adobe fixed this probem in LR4.2 RC (RC = Release Candidate) which you can download and use? In order to make everyone happy, they introduced a bit of logic when you edit the attributes of a KW. If, the "Export KW" had been on and you turn it off, then it unchecks the other two (nod to the privacy concern). However, once "Export KW" is off, then you can turn on either or both of the other two, giving us back the same capability we had prior to relase 4.0.

In yoour example, in the 4.2RC version you are able to have your Railway -> type -> Manufacturer -> Model -> Sub-group hierarchy in place but on export of a photo that just has the sub-group KW attached you can get Railway -> Manufacturer -> Model -> Sub-group included on the exported photo (note that the "Type" KW is not exported but "Railway" is). I think this is what you were after.

Dan
Photo of Benjamin Warde

Benjamin Warde, Employee

  • 488 Posts
  • 83 Reply Likes
Official Response
This issue has been fixed in Lightroom 4.2.

Thanks,
Ben
Photo of Daniel Gasienica

Daniel Gasienica

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Great work, Lightroom team! :)