How to export files from LR so that the date showing in the file information is the date of export not the original capture date of the file?

[J Phil]

Operating System

1. Windows 10

This is doing my head in. I've been using a copy of LR 5 that was originally my daughter's for a few months now to clean up scratches and dirt spots in negative scans. As more work is done on the tiff scans LR will slow down so I've been exporting the tiffs to a holding folder and then importing them back into LR so that I can continue work on them without having LR running in slow motion. Originally when I began doing this the date on the tiff file that was exported to the holding folder showed up with the date of the export. Now I find that when I export the tiff to the holding folder the date of the tiff file is showing up as the date the original scan file was imported into LR and not the date of export. I really need the exported tiff files to have the date of export attached to them. Can any one tell what has happened and if there is anything I can do to correct this situation? As you can probably tell I'm new to this and any help at all would be a lifesaver. Thank you.

J

 

[Replytoken]

Welcome to the forum. I do not believe that LR5 can use the date of export as part of the naming sequence. The dates typically used are the Capture Date or the File Modification Date (usually the date of import). But you work flow does not make a lot of sense. With LR, you generally import images and then only export files when you are finished and need a copy of the finished file. If you keep exporting and re-importing files, you will eventually degrade the quality of the image. Is there some reason that you cannot leave the images in LR5 until you need copies exported?

--Ken

 

[J Phil]

Welcome to the forum. I do not believe that LR5 can use the date of export as part of the naming sequence. The dates typically used are the Capture Date or the File Modification Date (usually the date of import). But you work flow does not make a lot of sense. With LR, you generally import images and then only export files when you are finished and need a copy of the finished file. If you keep exporting and re-importing files, you will eventually degrade the quality of the image. Is there some reason that you cannot leave the images in LR5 until you need copies exported?

--Ken

Ken, thanks for getting back. When cleaning scans from very old b/w negatives there are hundreds of scratches and dust spots to deal with. So many that eventually LR gets painfully slow. The only answer I've found is to export the file and import it back into LR. At this point LR treats it as a new capture and, although there is no access to any of the previous edits that were made before the file was exported, LR will handle the editing of the newly imported file quickly again. I've been told by others who have also run into this problem of LR slowing down after too many edits to a file that the technique of exporting a tiff as a tiff and then turning around and importing the file back into LR should cause no deterioration in the quality of a b/w image. What I need is to have the date and time of the exported file to show up as the date/time of export, which is what has been happening up until a couple of days ago. What is happening now is that the date/time of the exported file is the same as the capture date/time of the file that was exported .... i.e. they are identical. I've been told by a friend that the problem may lie in what has been selected in the Metadata section of the Export panel. It's too late tonight to try and besides I'm too crazy right now to do a good job so I'll leave it until tomorrow. I'll let you know if it works out.

J

 

[clee01l]

eventually LR gets painfully slow. The only answer I've found is to export the file and import it back into LR. At this point LR treats it as a new capture and, although there is no access to any of the previous edits that were made before the file was exported, LR will handle the editing of the newly imported file quickly again. I've been told by others who have also run into this problem of LR slowing down after too many edits to a file that the technique of exporting a tiff as a tiff and then turning around and importing the file back into LR should cause no deterioration in the quality of a b/w image

There have been many improvements since LR5. And it is true that a TIFF file can be lossless while an 8 bit JPEG is not. The TIFF can be 16 bit and uncompressed which makes for huge files compared to the 8 bit always lossy compressed JPEG.

However, it may not be LR5 that is slowing things down, but your hardware and WindowsOS. You need at least 32GB of RAM, a multi core CPU Processor and a GPU to off load some of the CPU work. LR5 does not take advantage of the latter.

Photoshop v25, (which is available with a current subscription) can clean "hundreds of scratches and dust spots " in one pass using a neural filter designed to fix old scratchy dusty photos. Lightroom Classic v14 has a feature called Generative AI that can removed dust spots in a smart way in just one pass.

FWIW, I have never encountered Lightroom slowing down while I worked to remove spots even when I was using LR5 and earlier versions.

If your hardware is sufficiently spec'ed to run a modern image processing application like todays Adobe's products, you can install a trial version of the Photography Plan and see just how Photoshop's Photo Restoration Neural Filter might work on your images. And while you are trialing the software, LrC v14 can use Generative AI spot removal to remove dust spots in one pass. Trying these two features might mean that a Photography plan subscription might be worth the effort and save you much time over the tedious work you are doing now.

Please reply by pasting the system specs found in LR5 menu {Help}{System Info...} and we can evaluate whether you might benefit from a modern image processing system that has advanced over the 12 year old app that you are currently using.

 

[J Phil]

There have been many improvements since LR5. And it is true that a TIFF file can be lossless while an 8 bit JPEG is not. The TIFF can be 16 bit and uncompressed which makes for huge files compared to the 8 bit always lossy compressed JPEG.

However, it may not be LR5 that is slowing things down, but your hardware and WindowsOS. You need at least 32GB of RAM, a multi core CPU Processor and a GPU to off load some of the CPU work. LR5 does not take advantage of the latter.

Photoshop v25, (which is available with a current subscription) can clean "hundreds of scratches and dust spots " in one pass using a neural filter designed to fix old scratchy dusty photos. Lightroom Classic v14 has a feature called Generative AI that can removed dust spots in a smart way in just one pass.

FWIW, I have never encountered Lightroom slowing down while I worked to remove spots even when I was using LR5 and earlier versions.

If your hardware is sufficiently spec'ed to run a modern image processing application like todays Adobe's products, you can install a trial version of the Photography Plan and see just how Photoshop's Photo Restoration Neural Filter might work on your images. And while you are trialing the software, LrC v14 can use Generative AI spot removal to remove dust spots in one pass. Trying these two features might mean that a Photography plan subscription might be worth the effort and save you much time over the tedious work you are doing now.

Please reply by pasting the system specs found in LR5 menu {Help}{System Info...} and we can evaluate whether you might benefit from a modern image processing system that has advanced over the 12 year old app that you are currently using.

Hi Ken,

I have tried the photo restoration tools in the current LR at a friend's. While they are very fast, the results are not that accurate when there are so many defects to handle. Also it tended to over correct a lot so that areas that were actually part of the image were affected. We worked on the file for quite a while adjusting to get the best outcome and eventually I decided that, even with the speed and ease of use, having to go back to correct the over corrections and the areas that were missed added another layer of confusion and just wasn't worth it. My friend is a professional photographer and he advised me that, while for small jobs the restoration tools work fine, in my case the size of the damaged areas and shear number of small spots in the file were beyond it's capabilities. Plus he said that I would need a more current computer to make full use of the current LR. (I've attached the system specs) If that's not enough, I really don't see the point in renting software from Adobe when all of my edits will disappear when I stop the subscription. This is just a hobby for me and I don't begrudge the time spent working on the photos, and the way I approach the restoration process gives me complete control over the output. By the way, I did find out that by changing how the metadata is treated while exporting the file does change how the file date is presented in the new file created. Thank you very much for taking the time to help me. I really do appreciate it.

J

 

[J Phil]

Hi Ken,

I have tried the photo restoration tools in the current LR at a friend's. While they are very fast, the results are not that accurate when there are so many defects to handle. Also it tended to over correct a lot so that areas that were actually part of the image were affected. We worked on the file for quite a while adjusting to get the best outcome and eventually I decided that, even with the speed and ease of use, having to go back to correct the over corrections and the areas that were missed added another layer of confusion and just wasn't worth it. My friend is a professional photographer and he advised me that, while for small jobs the restoration tools work fine, in my case the size of the damaged areas and shear number of small spots in the file were beyond it's capabilities. Plus he said that I would need a more current computer to make full use of the current LR. (I've attached the system specs) If that's not enough, I really don't see the point in renting software from Adobe when all of my edits will disappear when I stop the subscription. This is just a hobby for me and I don't begrudge the time spent working on the photos, and the way I approach the restoration process gives me complete control over the output. By the way, I did find out that by changing how the metadata is treated while exporting the file does change how the file date is presented in the new file created. Thank you very much for taking the time to help me. I really do appreciate it.

J

I meant to say that my we were working with Photoshop not LR at my friend's.

 

[Replytoken]

Hi Ken,

I have tried the photo restoration tools in the current LR at a friend's. While they are very fast, the results are not that accurate when there are so many defects to handle. Also it tended to over correct a lot so that areas that were actually part of the image were affected. We worked on the file for quite a while adjusting to get the best outcome and eventually I decided that, even with the speed and ease of use, having to go back to correct the over corrections and the areas that were missed added another layer of confusion and just wasn't worth it. My friend is a professional photographer and he advised me that, while for small jobs the restoration tools work fine, in my case the size of the damaged areas and shear number of small spots in the file were beyond it's capabilities. Plus he said that I would need a more current computer to make full use of the current LR. (I've attached the system specs) If that's not enough, I really don't see the point in renting software from Adobe when all of my edits will disappear when I stop the subscription. This is just a hobby for me and I don't begrudge the time spent working on the photos, and the way I approach the restoration process gives me complete control over the output. By the way, I did find out that by changing how the metadata is treated while exporting the file does change how the file date is presented in the new file created. Thank you very much for taking the time to help me. I really do appreciate it.

J

A couple of thoughts. First, it was Cletus that provided you with a more detailed reply earlier today. No worries, just wanted you to be aware that different folks often reply to forum posts.

Second, I took a look at your machine specs. You are currently running a fourth generation i7 processor. By way of comparison, Intel is now on their 15th generation of processors. LR5 probably runs okay with this generation processor, but you are somewhat trapped in a time capsule as support for Win 10 ends this October, and I am sure that your processor is not fully supported in Win 11.

Regarding LR Creative Cloud subscriptions, if you subscribe and later cancel your subscription, the work that you have done to your images is still available for download, but you cannot do any further work to the images. LR Classic will allow you to continue using the Library module even after your subscription lapses. If you just do not care for subscription software, then you may want to start working on a migration path with other software. But do note that a lot of paid software is moving towards the subscription model.

I cannot comment on the images you are scanning and trying to restore as "restoration" runs the gamut from an auto correct to extensive work in Photoshop.

Lastly, if you do move to LR Classic, you should note that the hardware requirements are not for the faint of heart. The new versions of LR Classic make use of a GPU for functions like Denoise, and underpowered machines can take many minutes to perform what a well equipped machine can do in seconds. I understand this is just a hobby for you, but as cameras have become more complex and sophisticated with each new generation, so has processing software. I suggest doing some research on your options before moving one way or the other.

Good luck,

--Ken

 

[RoyReed]

I'd have a look at some alternatives to Lightroom/Photoshop to see how well they run on your PC. There are several options all at well under $100, any of which might suit you better than an old version of Lightroom. Try looking at:
Adobe Photoshop Elements
Corel Paintshop Pro
Serif Affinity Photo
I think all of these allow you to install for a free test period before having to purchase.

 

[clee01l]

RoyReed makes som good suggestions. Topaz also offers products that can repair old photos

 

[RoyReed]

There's also the free GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program). I hate the interface, but it's a fully capable image editor and will do everything the OP requires.

 

[Replytoken]

I'd have a look at some alternatives to Lightroom/Photoshop to see how well they run on your PC. There are several options all at well under $100, any of which might suit you better than an old version of Lightroom. Try looking at:
Adobe Photoshop Elements
Corel Paintshop Pro
Serif Affinity Photo
I think all of these allow you to install for a free test period before having to purchase.

For those that do not like subscription software, Affinity offers nice programs at very reasonable prices. But I do not believe they have a non-destructive photo editor for Windows.

--Ken

 

[RoyReed]

For those that do not like subscription software, Affinity offers nice programs at very reasonable prices. But I do not believe they have a non-destructive photo editor for Windows.

--Ken

They don't, but the OP isn't able to use non-destructive techniques with his version of Lightroom anyway, and is having to save out as TIF and reimport to be able to carry on working.

 

[Replytoken]

They don't, but the OP isn't able to use non-destructive techniques with his version of Lightroom anyway, and is having to save out as TIF and reimport to be able to carry on working.

True, but the OP's workflow can be adjusted to be non-destructive.

--Ken