Lightroom: Lossy DNG images are a no-show in LR4 Library using Metadata Sort

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 6 years ago
  • (Edited)
In Lightroom 4.0, when I look for Digital Negative / Lossy images in the Library module using the Metadata / File Type sort tool (a la Julieanne Kost's tip in the video about DNG Enhancements in LR4), the result is "No photos match the filter." I have just converted several Lossless DNG to Lossy DNG as an archival test to see how much quality is lost. The File Type List shows several Lossy and Lossless DNGs; clicking on the Lossless category shows me all DNGs and clicking on Lossy shows me none.

Restarting LR4 does "fix" the issue with existing Lossy DNGs, but LR4 has to be restarted after any Lossy DNG conversion for them to properly show up via the Metadata sort.
Photo of Jeremiah Benjamin

Jeremiah Benjamin

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață, Champion

  • 703 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Sorry, can you see the same behaviour in smart collections?
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 384 Reply Likes
I can not replicate this behavior - clicking on 'Digital Negative / Lossy Compressed' under 'File Type' (lib metadata filter) shows all of them, as expected, even immediately after conversion.

(win7/64)

Rob
Photo of Jeremiah Benjamin

Jeremiah Benjamin

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Sorry for the long wait on this one! I don't use Smart Collections, and I'm on Mac OS X 10.6 not Win7, though at the time I was also using Win7 and thought it was consistent on both for some reason. Stopped using Win7 though, for other reasons.

Since then LR 4.1 and 4.2 have come out but I haven't needed to go to Lossy for anything. I just tested and it is working as demonstrated so either something got fixed in LR, or else something on my Mac changed...the latter seems most likely. I did upgrade my Mac's main drive from a failing 200GB to a new 500GB about 4-5 months ago, and since no one else apparently noticed this anomaly I'm guessing that was the culprit.

Either way, I'm glad it wasn't a widespread bug.