Auto write metadata to xmp

[bach]

Two questions about this option: Automatically write metadata to xmp.

I am currently using this option.

First, I read elsewhere that checking this option is a disaster waiting to happen. Sounds rather scarey.

Second, what photos are affected? If I make a change, I have shown that it immediately writes that change to xmp, and is seen in Bridge. Does it write to the xmp file only for this photo, or, does it write for the rest of the Folder, (or Catalog) also, if the option had previously been turned off?

I must say thanks for all the help from this forum: just reading the threads, and for answering my specific questions. And no insults or arrogance. So refreshing. A great learning experience.

Sonny Taylor

 

[dj_paige]

First, I read elsewhere that checking this option is a disaster waiting to happen. Sounds rather scarey.

It sure would be nice if you could tell us what you read, or where you read this, instead of scaring people.

Can you elaborate?

 

[bach]

It sure would be nice if you could tell us what you read, or where you read this, instead of scaring people.

Can you elaborate?

I will try to find the source. I read exactly what I typed, previous post. That was all that was said. Obviously, a single statement on the internet does not make it correct.

I was just looking for confirmation here, that the info was INCORRECT, rather than substantiating it. Not trying to scare anyone. Especially, since I do use the option, Automatically write to xmp.

Sonny

 

[Mark Sirota]

Early on, I was one of the people strongly advocating against its use. I don't think I've ever publicly updated that statement.

It used to be a major performance hit. LR is already highly disk intensive, and asking it to do a write every time you make a change adds to an already high, but mostly read-oriented, load.

The Lightroom team at Adobe have since put considerable effort into reducing the I/O load generated by this option, and for most systems it is now negligible.

Personally, I still don't use it, but I don't use Bridge or Photoshop or any other software that might need to see the XMP data. Many who do need the XMP data will write it only for those images that they need it for, which is usually only a small subset.

But arguably it does make some sense from a belt-and-suspenders point of view -- if your catalog becomes corrupt, damaged, or lost, then most of the information will still be available in the XMP.

Did that clarify it?

 

[bach]

Early on, I was one of the people strongly advocating against its use. I don't think I've ever publicly updated that statement.

It used to be a major performance hit. LR is already highly disk intensive, and asking it to do a write every time you make a change adds to an already high, but mostly read-oriented, load.

The Lightroom team at Adobe have since put considerable effort into reducing the I/O load generated by this option, and for most systems it is now negligible.

Personally, I still don't use it, but I don't use Bridge or Photoshop or any other software that might need to see the XMP data. Many who do need the XMP data will write it only for those images that they need it for, which is usually only a small subset.

But arguably it does make some sense from a belt-and-suspenders point of view -- if your catalog becomes corrupt, damaged, or lost, then most of the information will still be available in the XMP.

Did that clarify it?

Thanks, Mark and Paige,

For completeness sake, here is the source, Post #6, 1. statement:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29564

Sorry for any confusion.

Sonny

 

[dj_paige]

Thanks for finding the link, Sonny. The person who wrote that doesn't give any explanation either. If there was a performance hit by turning on “Automatically write metadata to xmp” in Version 1 of Lightroom, I would agree with Mark Sirota that it is negligible in version 2. But a performance hit is extremely different than a “disaster waiting to happen”, so now I direct my disdain at the person who originally wrote “disaster waiting to happen”.

 

[bach]

Thanks for finding the link, Sonny. The person who wrote that doesn't give any explanation either. If there was a performance hit by turning on “Automatically write metadata to xmp” in Version 1 of Lightroom, I would agree with Mark Sirota that it is negligible in version 2. But a performance hit is extremely different than a “disaster waiting to happen”, so now I direct my disdain at the person who originally wrote “disaster waiting to happen”.

I did have a real question in my original post:

Second, what photos are affected? If I make a change, I have shown that it immediately writes that change to xmp, and is seen in Bridge. Does it write to the xmp file only for this photo, or, does it write for the rest of the Folder, (or Catalog) also, if the option had previously been turned off?

Thanks,

Sonny

 

[Brad Snyder]

I believe if you turn the auto-write on (which is a catalog specific setting, not Lr global), it goes merrily along writing metadata for every image in that catalog. Once the first pass is completed, it only affects work in progress.

While the performance hit of autowrite has been widely debated, there is defintely a temporary performance hit related to turning auto-write on/off, since that takes a read and possible write to every file in the catalog, either verifying or catching up.

So, pick a setting and stay with it.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Yeah, I was in on that thread. Nothing bad will happen to your pictures - they were just talking about performance. It's not a huge difference any more, but if your files are on an slow external drive, it could slow things down a tad. Having written to xmp is a great extra backup though.

If LR runs like the wind on your machine, or you're willing to put up with a slight performance hit, then you can leave it turned on. If you're trying to wring every last bit of performance out of your computer, turn it off, and just select all in Grid view and hit Ctrl-S / Cmd-S every now and again.