LR Plugin publish issue

rfield

I'm a new SM subscriber and I just started using the LR6 Plugin (just updated the version) and I have an issue and a question.

When I first installed the plugin for the 'File export' setting I selected "Original" which works fine and my PNG files were published without issue.
Then I noticed that any edits (developing) I did in LR were not reflected in the published image on the next sync.

I figured that it was likely the result of selecting "Original" so I changed it to "JPEG". I also saw the thread where this was mentioned.

I'm finding that images are still being published as PNG instead of JPEG even though I selected JPEG and I'm unable to publish and see the edits.
Have I missed somethng? I tried restarting the plugin and LR and still no luck. I also made sure I selected a previously unpublished photo for testing.

And I have a question. I'd like to confirm an observation on publishing. I've noticed that if I edit metadata and the photo is marked to republish that it appears as though only the metadata is published and not replacing the original image. If I then go and mark the image to re-publish then the image is replaced with the updated version.
I'm okay with this since the original in LR has the data embedded but I'm wondering if this was by design. I know I can always force a re-publish to update the images.

I really do like this plugin, the sync is great and being able to setup gallery properties etc. from LR is excellent!

Thanks,

Ron

rfield

Quick update

If I set the "File Settings" setting to 'JPEG' and Develop and publish a jpg image I see the expected results when published.
If I leave the "File Setting" as 'JPEG' and Develop and publish a png image I see the original png image. I would have expected to see the edited version of the png published as a jpg.

I'm now wondering if I'm misunderstanding the "File Settings"?

rfield

Okay, the problem only happens when using PNG files. tif and jpg publish as expected with the develop settings appearing online using the "File Settings" of 'JPEG'.

PNG files always get published as original PNG files no matter which setting is selected.
TIF files exported using 'TIF' are published as JPG with develop edits.
TIF files exported using 'ORIGINAL' are published as tif according to SM Exif but only download as jpg.
TIF files exported using 'JPEG' are published as jpg with develop edits.

It's difficult to find a non-lossy format that you can publish as an edited JPG or to archive.

Ferguson

I'm a bit confused but let me clear up a few things.

Metadata changes work as you mentioned, though actually a bit more complicated. If you want the image AND metadata updated, then you need to "Mark for republish" AFTER you publish with just the metadata changes. And even then only some metadata is replaced. The original image gets what you upload, always, every time (if the image itself goes). The smaller images for reasons only SM thinks as a non-bug, it will get some of the original metadata. And date/time are never updated unless you actually delete and re-upload the image (not replace). In my opinion it is a mess, and SM is talking about changing it, but with no dates set.

My routine process is: publish, once I'm finished editing metadata I publish again (for metadata), then select-all, and mark-for republish, and publish yet again. This at least ensures the originals have the metadata if someone downloads them, and gets as much metadata updated as Smugmug will permit now.

Note: If you delete, then separately add again, EVERYTHING is updated properly. However, the URL's of the images change. IF this does not matter to you, it is another easy way to get everything perfect, with the caveat of URL's plus the caveat of them disappearing while you do it if people look.

I'm not understanding the file types, but a clue: If you set "original" it generally means it; with that said, SM may be converting some file types behind the scenes. What I think you want is right click on the plugin under publish, and under file set it to JPG, quality to 92, no resize, no file size limits. This should always upload JPG's.

If you are trying to push originals to use Smugmug as an archive/backup - don't. I mean, you can, and they will let you, but it is not really designed as such; it lacks versioning, and won't preserve types like raw (and if you are not shooting raw, and are a lightroom user, you are missing one of its real strengths). Get a real backup service; Smugmug is not one, it is a photo sharing site.

Note just opinions from a user, this is not SM dogma.

rfield

Hi Ferguson,

Thank you for confirming the process I started using, the double publish. First is the metadata update, then select all and re-publish to update all. I didn't know about the date not updating.

I've discovered that using the JPG setting will convert jpg and tif files to jpg with the develop edits included for SM but PNG files are always left original no matter the setting. I may have to convert some older family photo scans to tif in order to share on Smugmug or have two copies which I don't want to do.

And you're correct I was thinking of using SM for possible archive/backup but the more I play the more I think that may not be a good idea.

Thank you for the feedback I really appreciate it.

devbobo

G'day Guys,

Right now, PNGs always export as Original regardless of what has been set as the export option. The reason for this is that, is a lot of users use PNGs for watermarking and if there are exported as JPGs then the transparency is removed and they are useless for that job.

I should probably add an option to toggle that functionality on/off.

Cheers,

David

rfield

Hi David,

Thank you for confirming the way PNG is working, I thought I was messing it up :-)
The PNG option would be very handy if possible.

Ron