Reposting, forum seems to have discarded my entire post when I clicked to Edit it (fix a typo), so here's a new version...
I don't know a way to Republish all the 65,000 photos. Select All seems to happen but no Republish-related button/action was found.
Instead, in the SmugMug section of LR I selected each of my 3 top level folders, selected Mark to Republish. Then opened Edit Settings and clicked Sync Now. LR started an hour-long process. But THEN, it began an endless stream of Match / No Match dialogs, though again, to me the photos are identical. I don't understand why the sync process is asking this question. They are either identical (Match) or not (No Match), why ask me?
Being a modal dialog, LR gets locked once the Match questions begin. I have to click Cancel Sync to bail out. Back to Step 0.
Not quite giving up, I again did Select All of 65,000 photos. Then opened SM's Edit Settings. I noticed that the Publish check boxes were inactive, but Republish boxes were active, and all selected. So, I again slicked Sync Now. LR started into something, it will take a while to determine what happens...
(BTW, I don't get why LR<-->SM button Sync Now is found in Edit Settings, it's an action not a setting. Is that just the only place LR allows you to have such buttons?)
We're hearing more and more accounts of needing to click "Match" thousands of times, so I'll talk about this with our developer about creating a better experience. Until then, I unfortionately don't have an elegant solution. I'm not sure why it's asking you to do that, since it should find the matches without needing confirmation. I'll see if there's a bug somewhere or something we can do to get it to auto-match. But I probably won't have an answer until monday.
@Hpix said:
BTW, I don't get why LR<-->SM button Sync Now is found in Edit Settings, it's an action not a setting. Is that just the only place LR allows you to have such buttons?
Don't get me started on this one We're limited by what Adobe lets us do with their tools and we've been limited to sticking the sync in the Settings. We've got a great relationship with Adobe and I talk with them several times a month but can't get them to improve this piece for us (more importantly, for all of you). They're a great partner to work with, and have done some amazing things to help us out, but they too, have to make tough prioritization decisions and haven't gotten to this one.
My latest attempt to Republish, presumably ALL photos, apparently did nothing. Checking random photos on SM they still have MashedTogetherKeywords. Of course, the cause is probably me clicking Cancel Sync instead of doing 65,000 Match / No Match clicks.
I think I'll delete all photos from my smallest SM top level folder. Then reload the 6500 photos and see if a "new" Upload ends up with correct Keywords.
Re fixing things, the other UX oddity to me is the Upload dialog. When I first started experimenting, I wanted to Replace an entire (small) folder I had already uploaded. I dragged the folder, SM grabbed it, and immediately started uploading. BUT, I wanted to select Replace Duplicates rather than default Skip Duplicates. But by the time I could use the pulldown to select Replace (or Allow or Skip), the Update process had already processed several files. Unless I'm screwing it up, it seems unworkable, like starting a road trip then deciding to check your tires air while rolling down the street.
Aren't there logically three steps?
1. Tell SM what to Upload.
2. Tell SM how to handle the uploads, such as Replace existing, Skip duplicates, etc.
3. .Tell SM to Start the Upload.
The order of steps 1 and 2 could be swapped, as long as both happen before step 3. If the desire is for file/folder dragging to immediately start Upload, at least provide the ability to first specify the desired Next Upload Duplicate Files Action, so it blasts off appropriately.
Or (as always) I ask if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something...
FAILURE. I deleted a 6500 photos folder from SM. Confirmed I wanted it permanently deleted. SM munched for a while and the folder and photos disappeared.
I then Uploaded the same folder/subfolders from my PC. SM used default Skip Duplicates but presumably there are none (since I permanently deleted them). So it uploaded all 6500 again.
Then I checked a few pictures in SM. Horrors, they also have MashedTogetherKeywords. What's up? Either the keywords delimiter"fix" doesn't work, OR there is a delay between when a photo is Uploaded and when SM pulls out the Keywords and allows me to see them. BUT if I'm looking too quickly, wouldn't I see NOTHING since the photos are brand new to SM?
Or, did my deleting of everything, including metadata in SM's database, not really do that?
If you could send me your catalog file (if it can be attached here or emailed to help@smugmug.com) we can dive in a little further with our Lightroom developer. It sounds like it should be matching fine and I’m concerned that it is asking for so many confirmations
Just its catalog file... we don’t need any of the photos.
But keep in mind, my SM-only test of the metadata fix failed. LR was not involved, I manually deleted an entire folder of 6500+ photos from SM, then added it back as new, and the Keywords were still SmashedTogether with backslashes removed, not treated as delimiters. .
@leftquark just an idea when it comes to the matching question in the sync process with the LR plugin: I have seen it for my catalogs pretty much since I started using SmugMug, but it seems to happen mostly when you are using virtual copies. - I am most of the time shooting JPEG and RAW, but am only using the DNGs for my website, I cannot say that the JPEGs with the same filename have shown up too often in the matching process (cannot say that I am matching too often, since it takes me hours to go through everything).
What I have done to speed up my matching is that I am writing the galleries name into the copy name field in LR - Location, but so far the plugin is not able to show it, so I might have to add an html-comment with the gallery name to my captions to make it visible...
Hoping for an update on the issues that undermine my intended use of SmugMug, since today is the last day I can experiment with the combination of SM and Lightroom via their free trials.
So far, I have more disappointment than success. I love how SmugMug presents photos online, and soon after starting my exploration, I formed the intention of buying one of the advanced plans. But I've found that behind the curtain, the process and results are not so good. These issues are primary:
KEYWORDS: When Uploading photos, existing Keywords with forward or back slash delimiters get trashed. SmugMug Upload process removes the slashes so keywordssmashtogether, making them impossible to use as keywords such as in Smart Galleries. To fix this, metadata slashes should be treated as delimiters, creating separate Keywords in SM. Testing does not show any improvement in this.
UPDATING METADATA: Doing manual Update with Replace of photos already on SmugMug.com does not update their metadata, only the images. This makes it impossible to update Keywords, Dates, Captions, etc on SmugMug.com, a huge flaw. Experimenting with deleting entire folders and their photos, then Uploading as new, does not seem to refresh their metadata (as if photos were not actually deleted??). There seems to be NO way to update metadata in photos once they exist or have ever existed in SM.
LIGHTROOM SYNC: Synchronizing local and SmugMug photos using Lightroom does not reliably succeed. Instead, dealing with endless Match / No Match prompts are impractical, so the Sync process must be canceled. This happens between identical original local JPG photos and same photos previously directly uploaded to SmugMug, No other versions or virtual copies are used. Seems like a big bug that identical photos require human confirmation. It might be helpful if SM had Match / No Match response option Match All, but that is risky, what would be the outcome? Whatever Match purports to do, it shouldn't be bypassed, it should be fixed.
SMUGMUG SYNC: None, really. SmugMug lacks any type of two-way sync, or at a minimum one-way absolute update. To match competitors (and common file handling systems for 30 years), SM should be able to Upload with Replace / Delete based on comparing local photo with online photo using file date-time and/or whether file still exists or not. Apparently, current SM is simply "dumb", not able to help users manage local vs. online photo libraries.
SMUGMUG + LIGHTROOM: The advice that SmugMug requires Lightroom to comprise a complete solution is strange, and makes the seemingly reasonable price of SmugMug actually much higher. Advanced photographers who already use Lightroom won't notice or care that SM requires it. But for other users, there are dozens of alternative ways to organize and edit images. Even if they like SmugMug as a publishing/sharing service, with the Lightroom burden, is it not really for them? If SmugMug will not have full functionality as a standalone service, it should be made clear to prospective customers that in practice, Adobe Lightroom must also be purchased, and that combination is the real price.
That's my 3-weeks perspective on SM. If wrong, or soon to be improved, please advise.
Sorry, I meant to verify the backslash fix was working but haven't had a chance. I'll get to it monday. If you'd like me to extend your trial while we get this working, I'm happy to do so.
Again, the Lightroom Sync issue is not common -- if the metadata is in your catalog and in the photos on SM, 99% of our customers have their photos sync seamlessly. Additionally, if you used the LR Plugin to upload the photos in the first place, then there shouldn't ever be an issue with mismatching photos. It's my main method of uploading my several hundred thousand photos to my SM account.
We have a number of ways to upload to SmugMug, besides using Lightroom. It's not feasible for us to build integrations into every single program, especially since most of them don't allow us to build integrations. We have an open API that would allow developers, like JRiver, to create tools within their own programs to upload to SmugMug and we're happy to support their development of those features. Our web uploader is quite powerful, allows for folder uploads, importing photos from other services and more. We also have Desktop Apps which we're continuously working on (though currently focusing on our iOS and Android apps), which will get improved functionality like folder uploading and the ability to watch a folder. We're a small company, and while there's lots that we'd love to build, it does mean that we have to focus on the areas of greatest need and do hope to be able to get to a number of the items you've mentioned here.
I appreciate the elaborations and explanations. At this point, my goal with this discussion is either to hear that SmugMug Upload with Replace will be "fixed" soon, or to confirm that SmugMug updating / synching / replacing WITH metadata in practice requires Lightroom. I'm just seeking clarity. If the problems go away by using Lightroom, so be it, I just want to know. Because otherwise, SM involves bugs or anomalies or mysteries or workarounds:
-- Upload with Replace to update metadata of existing photos does not work. This fails because SM seems to not re-read metadata of existing photos, just re-load the actual image. (Just tested this again. Good news: Test photo had Keywords with backslashes, they were converted to delimiters, so that bug is fixed.)
-- Plan B, for photos that are uploaded via SM+browser, but later have changed metadata (very common): Delete from SM all such photos, then Upload again as new. This gets it done, but very time-consuming, must keep track of all photo files that get revised locally, delete from SM, then find them again in local library, then re-Upload. And repeat... A bug that will be fixed ASAP?
(Wish List 1: Tweak SM Upload with Replace to be smarter. It already compares file names and identifies Duplicates. SM just needs to also compare file timestamps, and offer to Replace SM file when local file date-time is newer, which it will be if image and/or metadata has been changed. This is the same behavior operating systems and most other apps have done for decades.)
(Wish List 2: Allow Upload of Folders to Replace and/or Skip Duplicate files. Right now, if the folder name already exists, Upload refuses to proceed. So, updating a folder with just some revised images requires much more work. And updating a top level folder with many subfolders requires separately selecting and uploading each one. If there are sub-subfolders it is essentially impossible. My system is, a folder for each year, from 1860s to 2018, and separate months for years when I also know the month, which is all years from 1940 or so. So, to Update I actually have to delete the top level folder, then re-Upload everything. This of course breaks galleries that had photos manually added. All of this massive hassle is because Upload Folders does not have the same options as Upload Files. )
-- Or, always use Lightroom with SmugMug so adding/updating SM works? I have heard that LR Sync does reliable full updating of SM, both image and metadata. But this might be a Day 1 or Never solution, because my test of LR sync failed. I uploaded a bunch of new files via SM in browser. Then I used LR to run Sync on exactly the same files between local and SM. This resulted in seemingly-endless MATCH queries. The files should be identical, but LR doesn't agree. (The MATCH dialog does not identify WHAT doesn't match, a huge shortcoming.) Unless LR Sync is simply wrong, the Match problem implies the local and already-on-SM files differ in some way. But how? Why? Implication is that SM and/or LR MODIFIES photos upon Upload, perhaps adding/changing metadata; Sync process sees the changes which trigger endless MATCH queries.
-- If the solution to image+metadata Sync is to ALWAYS Upload original new files to SmugMug by using Lightroom (not SM in browser), I have to conclude that LR, in reality, is REQUIRED with SmugMug. (It seems to be a one-way romance, LR does not require SM, apparently it can sync with other photo sites too).
Sorry to be repeating earlier points, and hope I'm clear. I'm up against the clock; SM trial expires this week, Lightroom soon after. To continue with real work, SM and LR require $$$ now, so I need to determine usefulness that justifies the $$$. If really I need to buy both SM and LR to have reliable full syncing/updating of SM galleries, I just need to know.
(Alas, I haven't found any need for Lightroom other than SmugMug syncing, LR seems cumbersome compared with my other imaging tools. For instance, I don't need library organization or metadata management, JRiver Media Center does this so much better. What else in LR am I overlooking?)
I apologize that I have to leave all this dangling, but I'm on the road this week. My Lightroom experimenting via free trial has expired. So I'm only able to explore the ways SmugMug works on its own via a browser. Today I did some testing of a few photos to verify the above metadata issues. My SmugMug trial period ends in a day or so. Hoping for some clarity before then...
July 19 update: SM just shut me down, end of free trail, end of my experimenting and testing.
The initial project was to provide my elderly father-in-law (and eventually several other family members) with a way to view all the family photos with explanatory Captions (the reason for focusing on metadata), which is a SmugMug strength.
To test Smart Galleries and show proper Captions after the recent fix of Keywords importing, I needed to reload the library so the metadata would be re-read. This required Deleting everything then re-Uploading, because simple Upload with Replace ignores metadata. But the new Upload proceeded very very slowly, after 2 days got about 5% Uploaded, now I'm shut down. So not sure how it would have worked out.
For now, family will continue to view all the same pictures on free Google Photos, which also will show the metadata but in a clumsy way, which is why I was evaluating SM.
While I can't yet recommend SmugMug to family, I'll periodically check here for any news on improvements, and/or the real story on using it with Lightroom.
During the summer I did lots of free-trial experimentation during the summer (then out of town for many weeks, snapping many photos). I'm back, bought a subscription, expecting good things from SmugMug. But instead, I am immediately disappointed, to put it mildly.
In July there was confirmation that SM uploading broke legitimate use of backslashes in metadata (mainly in keywords). SM supposedly fixed in mid-July. I couldn't do testing then, but today I tried again, uploading a bunch of recent photos. Dumb me. The backslash "fix" is no longer fixed, if it ever was. Almost all my photos (prior and now) have one or more nested keywords using backslashes, added by my local image file management system. It's a wonderful way to organize by nesting the tags, just like folders on a PC.
But upon uploading today, SM removeed the slash character, just smashing the keywords together. That is precisely what was said to be fixed almost two months ago!!!
Example, photos tagged with a location like this: Places\US\CA\June Lake
SmugMug shows this as PlaceUSCAune Lake
All my photos use backslashes to structure keywords (places, people, events, etc). Before I knew of this bug I uploaded many thousands of photos to SmugMug, and all ended up with the same trashed metadata.
While I was told SM was fixed for new uploads, photos already uploaded would retain the problem. Apparently fixing them requires require re-uploading. But doing that revealed the second metadata problem, it does not get updated using Upload+Replace, only the image gets replaced. Truly fixing the bad metadata would require deleting all the prior photos, then reloading. So I deferred that until after my trip, hoping SM might come up with a better way. Nope,
But, at least new photos would be handled properly. Except, that is not what happened today. They have exactly the same problem, exactly the same major bug in Smug Mug's Upload system. (Note, these were new photos, the Replace bug was not involved...)
So, now I can't upload new photos or update old ones. Pretty stupid that I just paid for a year's subscription. But SM is still doing the damage, a very sad situation.
Also, I read another user saying the LightRoom plug-in only does half the upload+replace too, but the opposite half. The report says it updates metadata correctly, but does NOT update the actual image. I'm just repeating, but also asking if anyone else has observed this? Because it would leave us with NO direct way to update photos.
Not trying to stir up trouble, but action is needed. There has to be trust that SmugMug works reliably. A photo has two parts, image and metadata. It is mandatory that both parts be loaded reliably, and re-loaded reliably, no matter what. Of what use is a professional photo web site that can't be reliably uploaded and then updated? I'd be very happy if someone can demonstrate that my experience and the other report are wrong, but if they are correct, SmugMug should defer working on tweaking gallery styles while they rapidly fix the mechanisms that drive it. (Who cares about decor if the photo+metadata is wrong?)
Last summer I got burned when I trusted SM's Upload+Replace, but why wouldn't I? I didn't discover it doesn't work until showing off my photos to others on SmugMug.com. I stopped that fast. I'm quite sure that once I start steering friends and colleagues to my showcase, they will become SmugMug fans and likely customers. But right now what they would see is a train wreck.
Well, I paid for a year, but for what, exactly? When posting photos online is the entire goal, but the posting system doesn't work, what can we do? Drive our files to Mountain View? Knock knock SM, is anyone home?
@Hpix: we do our best here at SmugMug to thrill all of you. I've hoped that my participation in this discussion is an example of how we commit to listening to our customers, understand their workflows, and then improve the product based on that feedback. In this instance, for example, we stopped our other work to add in the feature to use the backslash as a delineation between keywords.
It's that curiosity that drives me to want to understand further how the backslashes get added and in what manner. In fact, it was your curiosity and helpful responses that pushed us to want to add the functionality for you. I understand the results that you're seeing aren't a thrilling experience but I hope you'll continue to approach this conversation in a way that we can sort it out together, rather than accusing us of malice.
Could you link me to a photo or two where the backslashes did not separate into individual keywords? I'd like to understand if your keyword editing is doing something different than what we expected when it saves the metadata to the photo.
I can assure you, that the update we added to use the \ as a delimeter between keywords has in fact gone live and is still working.
Here's an example from Lightroom, in which I used the \ to break up keywords:
I did this about 10 minutes ago by adding the keyword in Lightroom, exporting it to my hard-drive, and then uploading it via the web-uploader to my gallery.
I pulled up a few of your recent uploads and it was very easy to understand why your photos are having the issue.
Throughout this discussion you mentioned that the photos were separated by a backslash. The examples you provided in this discussion all used the \ so when we updated the metadata processing we updated it to support backslashes, not forward-slashes.
It appears your photos are all being uploaded with forward-slashes:
Just to double-check and make sure we weren't incorrectly reading the metadata I pulled your original into Lightroom and it also sees forward-slashes:
Could you please confirm that you will also need forward-slashes to be processed as a delineator?
@Hpix said:
Also, I read another user saying the LightRoom plug-in only does half the upload+replace too, but the opposite half. The report says it updates metadata correctly, but does NOT update the actual image. I'm just repeating, but also asking if anyone else has observed this? Because it would leave us with NO direct way to update photos.
The Lightroom plugin attempts to be smart. If it detects that pixels have changed, then it can update the photo (the pixels). If it detects only the metadata has changed, then it updates only the metadata. And if it detects both have changed, then it updates the photo and the metadata.
This is done by having the plugin automatically detect the photo needs to be republished, or by right-clicking on a photo and choosing Mark to Republish then choosing the Publish button to initiate the update.
If you've only updated the metadata and you want to force it to update the photo, you can select Mark to Republish and then Publish a second time and the full photo will be uploaded.
Also, the metadata is stored in an "XMP" format in which there's a special recipe for how keywords are written into the photo. It often looks something like:
Each `<keyword>` line tells the software when one keyword ends and the next one begins.
Hierarchical keyword support was later added to image formats and adds a "children" flag that identifies the sub-tags, typically looking something like:
Because we're reading the keywords based on the metadata spec, which states that keywords are separated by "<keyword>" we see the full string as the keyword. Technically we're following the metadata spec and reading the metadata properly. However, just because we're doing what the metadata spec says doesn't always mean we're thrilling all of you. That's why we wanted to understand how you and your photo editor store these keywords so that we could do extra processing on the photos to get the outcome you'd like.
Aaron, thank you for replying extensively, I appreciate it.
You are correct, examining the physical photo files, I see they have forward slashes in Keywords. I keep saying back slash because that is what I see and use in my image organizing app JRiver Media Center 23. All my prior and current photos are tagged using this app, so whatever files you might have examined in June-July, or now, should have identical metadata formatting. But now I see forward slashes are what actually gets stored. I apologize for any confusion about this.
Though, in our June-July discussion of this, I thought you investigated and determined SM was removing delimiters that really should be allowed. That might be why I said on July 17, trying to summarize stuff to fix, that BOTH slash delimiters needed to be allowed in SM: "When Uploading photos, existing Keywords with forward or back slash delimiters get trashed. SmugMug Upload process removes the slashes so keywordssmashtogether, making them impossible to use as keywords such as in Smart Galleries."
Of course I am not expecting your team to jump through hoops just because I post a request, but I thought you had previously said that since the specs did not prohibit such delimiters, you would get SM to allow them. (I'm sure you are swamped with both good and crazy requests, hard to keep track...). My off-the-rails post yesterday was simply because I did exactly the same thing in June-July, reported the problem, it was declared fixable then fixed, but yesterday, not fixed. Now I understand, confusion over slash-direction. So now the question is, can the July fix be revisited ASAP?
(But also, if you can give me a specific statement about how JR Media Center should format and/or store Keywords better or differently, I'm happy to pass it on to them. They might react to expert opinion and facts if when the problem and resolution are clearly stated.)
======================================
But there's more in SM to fix, my testing shows a big bug remains: Upload with option Replace Duplicates ignores changed metadata so it can not be replaced. Yet changing Captions, Dates, Keywords is often the entire reason to re-Upload a photo (or hundreds). I do this far more than I diddle with the image, and from other user posts this is a common subsequent action. But as of testing today, it still seems that changing SM's metadata of an already-posted photo is impossible within SmugMug.com using Upload + Replace Duplicates. (I don't think it is relevant that Lightroom possibly can do it, SM should not have a user tool that doesn't do what it says.)
From our June 25 discussion:
@Hpix said: Meta Data being a ONE-TIME action upon Upload/Import, replacing photos does not update their MetaData such as Captions and Keywords. To do that seems to require first deleting the photos in SmugMug, then uploading again as new files. Lots of hassle.
Leftquark said: You are correct and it's something that's driven me nuts for years. I'm still working with the Engineering team to make it so the metadata gets updated on a replace (and am equally frustrated with how long its taking to prioritize it).
I feel that not fixing this FAST is harmful. Would any user of SmugMug.com expect choosing Replace Duplicates does not actually do that 100%? If we agree that a photo has two parts, the image and the metadata, how many users think they Replaced Captions or Dates or Keywords, but actually have not noticed that the metadata part didn't happen? It is a huge job to Upload with Replace Duplicates, then check the Captions and other metadata of hundreds or thousands of photos in SM to see if they are updated or not. This bug seems like red-lights-and-sirens to fix, a fundamental aspect of SmugMug.com that doesn't work.
Sorry to be dramatic, but I feel kind of trapped right now, loving the potential of SmugMug as a wonderful way to showcase my decades of photos (and more to come when my new camera arrives), but not seeing how to proceed due to the Replace and metadata problems.
I know Lightroom's strengths to process photos (er, Develop), but, even considering Lightroom as an upload workaround, and even if LR was free (hah!), it is clumsy and slow for metadata tasks like changing Captions, Keywords, Dates, then re-uploading. I can revise such things MUCH faster using other photo tools, so I do. Please, fix SmugMug.com so it works properly and completely on its own. Thank you.
One of the reasons we didn't initially do the forward slash was because we see people enter dates into their keywords using forward slashes: for example: 12/31/2017. We haven't quite decided what we want to do here.
Definitely appreciate the offer to reach out to JR Media Center. It appears that they've create dtheir own format for metadata keyword hierarchy, using the slashes (I think?). The EXIF format supports hierarchical keywords in the metadata, they just need to make sure they export the keywords in that format (specifically calling out the top level keyword and then its children in the proper XMP format).
Comments
Reposting, forum seems to have discarded my entire post when I clicked to Edit it (fix a typo), so here's a new version...
I don't know a way to Republish all the 65,000 photos. Select All seems to happen but no Republish-related button/action was found.
Instead, in the SmugMug section of LR I selected each of my 3 top level folders, selected Mark to Republish. Then opened Edit Settings and clicked Sync Now. LR started an hour-long process. But THEN, it began an endless stream of Match / No Match dialogs, though again, to me the photos are identical. I don't understand why the sync process is asking this question. They are either identical (Match) or not (No Match), why ask me?
Being a modal dialog, LR gets locked once the Match questions begin. I have to click Cancel Sync to bail out. Back to Step 0.
Not quite giving up, I again did Select All of 65,000 photos. Then opened SM's Edit Settings. I noticed that the Publish check boxes were inactive, but Republish boxes were active, and all selected. So, I again slicked Sync Now. LR started into something, it will take a while to determine what happens...
(BTW, I don't get why LR<-->SM button Sync Now is found in Edit Settings, it's an action not a setting. Is that just the only place LR allows you to have such buttons?)
We're hearing more and more accounts of needing to click "Match" thousands of times, so I'll talk about this with our developer about creating a better experience. Until then, I unfortionately don't have an elegant solution. I'm not sure why it's asking you to do that, since it should find the matches without needing confirmation. I'll see if there's a bug somewhere or something we can do to get it to auto-match. But I probably won't have an answer until monday.
Don't get me started on this one
We're limited by what Adobe lets us do with their tools and we've been limited to sticking the sync in the Settings. We've got a great relationship with Adobe and I talk with them several times a month but can't get them to improve this piece for us (more importantly, for all of you). They're a great partner to work with, and have done some amazing things to help us out, but they too, have to make tough prioritization decisions and haven't gotten to this one.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
My latest attempt to Republish, presumably ALL photos, apparently did nothing. Checking random photos on SM they still have MashedTogetherKeywords. Of course, the cause is probably me clicking Cancel Sync instead of doing 65,000 Match / No Match clicks.
I think I'll delete all photos from my smallest SM top level folder. Then reload the 6500 photos and see if a "new" Upload ends up with correct Keywords.
Re fixing things, the other UX oddity to me is the Upload dialog. When I first started experimenting, I wanted to Replace an entire (small) folder I had already uploaded. I dragged the folder, SM grabbed it, and immediately started uploading. BUT, I wanted to select Replace Duplicates rather than default Skip Duplicates. But by the time I could use the pulldown to select Replace (or Allow or Skip), the Update process had already processed several files. Unless I'm screwing it up, it seems unworkable, like starting a road trip then deciding to check your tires air while rolling down the street.
Aren't there logically three steps?
1. Tell SM what to Upload.
2. Tell SM how to handle the uploads, such as Replace existing, Skip duplicates, etc.
3. .Tell SM to Start the Upload.
The order of steps 1 and 2 could be swapped, as long as both happen before step 3. If the desire is for file/folder dragging to immediately start Upload, at least provide the ability to first specify the desired Next Upload Duplicate Files Action, so it blasts off appropriately.
Or (as always) I ask if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding something...
FAILURE. I deleted a 6500 photos folder from SM. Confirmed I wanted it permanently deleted. SM munched for a while and the folder and photos disappeared.
I then Uploaded the same folder/subfolders from my PC. SM used default Skip Duplicates but presumably there are none (since I permanently deleted them). So it uploaded all 6500 again.
Then I checked a few pictures in SM. Horrors, they also have MashedTogetherKeywords. What's up? Either the keywords delimiter"fix" doesn't work, OR there is a delay between when a photo is Uploaded and when SM pulls out the Keywords and allows me to see them. BUT if I'm looking too quickly, wouldn't I see NOTHING since the photos are brand new to SM?
Or, did my deleting of everything, including metadata in SM's database, not really do that?
If you could send me your catalog file (if it can be attached here or emailed to help@smugmug.com) we can dive in a little further with our Lightroom developer. It sounds like it should be matching fine and I’m concerned that it is asking for so many confirmations
Just its catalog file... we don’t need any of the photos.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
I emailed my catalog file to you.
But keep in mind, my SM-only test of the metadata fix failed. LR was not involved, I manually deleted an entire folder of 6500+ photos from SM, then added it back as new, and the Keywords were still SmashedTogether with backslashes removed, not treated as delimiters. .
@leftquark just an idea when it comes to the matching question in the sync process with the LR plugin: I have seen it for my catalogs pretty much since I started using SmugMug, but it seems to happen mostly when you are using virtual copies. - I am most of the time shooting JPEG and RAW, but am only using the DNGs for my website, I cannot say that the JPEGs with the same filename have shown up too often in the matching process (cannot say that I am matching too often, since it takes me hours to go through everything).
What I have done to speed up my matching is that I am writing the galleries name into the copy name field in LR - Location, but so far the plugin is not able to show it, so I might have to add an html-comment with the gallery name to my captions to make it visible...
.
.
Instagram
Twitter
Hoping for an update on the issues that undermine my intended use of SmugMug, since today is the last day I can experiment with the combination of SM and Lightroom via their free trials.
So far, I have more disappointment than success. I love how SmugMug presents photos online, and soon after starting my exploration, I formed the intention of buying one of the advanced plans. But I've found that behind the curtain, the process and results are not so good. These issues are primary:
KEYWORDS: When Uploading photos, existing Keywords with forward or back slash delimiters get trashed. SmugMug Upload process removes the slashes so keywordssmashtogether, making them impossible to use as keywords such as in Smart Galleries. To fix this, metadata slashes should be treated as delimiters, creating separate Keywords in SM. Testing does not show any improvement in this.
UPDATING METADATA: Doing manual Update with Replace of photos already on SmugMug.com does not update their metadata, only the images. This makes it impossible to update Keywords, Dates, Captions, etc on SmugMug.com, a huge flaw. Experimenting with deleting entire folders and their photos, then Uploading as new, does not seem to refresh their metadata (as if photos were not actually deleted??). There seems to be NO way to update metadata in photos once they exist or have ever existed in SM.
LIGHTROOM SYNC: Synchronizing local and SmugMug photos using Lightroom does not reliably succeed. Instead, dealing with endless Match / No Match prompts are impractical, so the Sync process must be canceled. This happens between identical original local JPG photos and same photos previously directly uploaded to SmugMug, No other versions or virtual copies are used. Seems like a big bug that identical photos require human confirmation. It might be helpful if SM had Match / No Match response option Match All, but that is risky, what would be the outcome? Whatever Match purports to do, it shouldn't be bypassed, it should be fixed.
SMUGMUG SYNC: None, really. SmugMug lacks any type of two-way sync, or at a minimum one-way absolute update. To match competitors (and common file handling systems for 30 years), SM should be able to Upload with Replace / Delete based on comparing local photo with online photo using file date-time and/or whether file still exists or not. Apparently, current SM is simply "dumb", not able to help users manage local vs. online photo libraries.
SMUGMUG + LIGHTROOM: The advice that SmugMug requires Lightroom to comprise a complete solution is strange, and makes the seemingly reasonable price of SmugMug actually much higher. Advanced photographers who already use Lightroom won't notice or care that SM requires it. But for other users, there are dozens of alternative ways to organize and edit images. Even if they like SmugMug as a publishing/sharing service, with the Lightroom burden, is it not really for them? If SmugMug will not have full functionality as a standalone service, it should be made clear to prospective customers that in practice, Adobe Lightroom must also be purchased, and that combination is the real price.
That's my 3-weeks perspective on SM. If wrong, or soon to be improved, please advise.
Sorry, I meant to verify the backslash fix was working but haven't had a chance. I'll get to it monday. If you'd like me to extend your trial while we get this working, I'm happy to do so.
Again, the Lightroom Sync issue is not common -- if the metadata is in your catalog and in the photos on SM, 99% of our customers have their photos sync seamlessly. Additionally, if you used the LR Plugin to upload the photos in the first place, then there shouldn't ever be an issue with mismatching photos. It's my main method of uploading my several hundred thousand photos to my SM account.
We have a number of ways to upload to SmugMug, besides using Lightroom. It's not feasible for us to build integrations into every single program, especially since most of them don't allow us to build integrations. We have an open API that would allow developers, like JRiver, to create tools within their own programs to upload to SmugMug and we're happy to support their development of those features. Our web uploader is quite powerful, allows for folder uploads, importing photos from other services and more. We also have Desktop Apps which we're continuously working on (though currently focusing on our iOS and Android apps), which will get improved functionality like folder uploading and the ability to watch a folder. We're a small company, and while there's lots that we'd love to build, it does mean that we have to focus on the areas of greatest need and do hope to be able to get to a number of the items you've mentioned here.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
I just upload a couple of photos using the backslash and it worked fine for me from Lightroom,
Instagram
Twitter
I appreciate the elaborations and explanations. At this point, my goal with this discussion is either to hear that SmugMug Upload with Replace will be "fixed" soon, or to confirm that SmugMug updating / synching / replacing WITH metadata in practice requires Lightroom. I'm just seeking clarity. If the problems go away by using Lightroom, so be it, I just want to know. Because otherwise, SM involves bugs or anomalies or mysteries or workarounds:
-- Upload with Replace to update metadata of existing photos does not work. This fails because SM seems to not re-read metadata of existing photos, just re-load the actual image. (Just tested this again. Good news: Test photo had Keywords with backslashes, they were converted to delimiters, so that bug is fixed.)
-- Plan B, for photos that are uploaded via SM+browser, but later have changed metadata (very common): Delete from SM all such photos, then Upload again as new. This gets it done, but very time-consuming, must keep track of all photo files that get revised locally, delete from SM, then find them again in local library, then re-Upload. And repeat... A bug that will be fixed ASAP?
(Wish List 1: Tweak SM Upload with Replace to be smarter. It already compares file names and identifies Duplicates. SM just needs to also compare file timestamps, and offer to Replace SM file when local file date-time is newer, which it will be if image and/or metadata has been changed. This is the same behavior operating systems and most other apps have done for decades.)
(Wish List 2: Allow Upload of Folders to Replace and/or Skip Duplicate files. Right now, if the folder name already exists, Upload refuses to proceed. So, updating a folder with just some revised images requires much more work. And updating a top level folder with many subfolders requires separately selecting and uploading each one. If there are sub-subfolders it is essentially impossible. My system is, a folder for each year, from 1860s to 2018, and separate months for years when I also know the month, which is all years from 1940 or so. So, to Update I actually have to delete the top level folder, then re-Upload everything. This of course breaks galleries that had photos manually added. All of this massive hassle is because Upload Folders does not have the same options as Upload Files. )
-- Or, always use Lightroom with SmugMug so adding/updating SM works? I have heard that LR Sync does reliable full updating of SM, both image and metadata. But this might be a Day 1 or Never solution, because my test of LR sync failed. I uploaded a bunch of new files via SM in browser. Then I used LR to run Sync on exactly the same files between local and SM. This resulted in seemingly-endless MATCH queries. The files should be identical, but LR doesn't agree. (The MATCH dialog does not identify WHAT doesn't match, a huge shortcoming.) Unless LR Sync is simply wrong, the Match problem implies the local and already-on-SM files differ in some way. But how? Why? Implication is that SM and/or LR MODIFIES photos upon Upload, perhaps adding/changing metadata; Sync process sees the changes which trigger endless MATCH queries.
-- If the solution to image+metadata Sync is to ALWAYS Upload original new files to SmugMug by using Lightroom (not SM in browser), I have to conclude that LR, in reality, is REQUIRED with SmugMug. (It seems to be a one-way romance, LR does not require SM, apparently it can sync with other photo sites too).
Sorry to be repeating earlier points, and hope I'm clear. I'm up against the clock; SM trial expires this week, Lightroom soon after. To continue with real work, SM and LR require $$$ now, so I need to determine usefulness that justifies the $$$. If really I need to buy both SM and LR to have reliable full syncing/updating of SM galleries, I just need to know.
(Alas, I haven't found any need for Lightroom other than SmugMug syncing, LR seems cumbersome compared with my other imaging tools. For instance, I don't need library organization or metadata management, JRiver Media Center does this so much better. What else in LR am I overlooking?)
I apologize that I have to leave all this dangling, but I'm on the road this week. My Lightroom experimenting via free trial has expired. So I'm only able to explore the ways SmugMug works on its own via a browser. Today I did some testing of a few photos to verify the above metadata issues. My SmugMug trial period ends in a day or so. Hoping for some clarity before then...
July 19 update: SM just shut me down, end of free trail, end of my experimenting and testing.
The initial project was to provide my elderly father-in-law (and eventually several other family members) with a way to view all the family photos with explanatory Captions (the reason for focusing on metadata), which is a SmugMug strength.
To test Smart Galleries and show proper Captions after the recent fix of Keywords importing, I needed to reload the library so the metadata would be re-read. This required Deleting everything then re-Uploading, because simple Upload with Replace ignores metadata. But the new Upload proceeded very very slowly, after 2 days got about 5% Uploaded, now I'm shut down. So not sure how it would have worked out.
For now, family will continue to view all the same pictures on free Google Photos, which also will show the metadata but in a clumsy way, which is why I was evaluating SM.
While I can't yet recommend SmugMug to family, I'll periodically check here for any news on improvements, and/or the real story on using it with Lightroom.
Thanks for the discussion.
.
During the summer I did lots of free-trial experimentation during the summer (then out of town for many weeks, snapping many photos). I'm back, bought a subscription, expecting good things from SmugMug. But instead, I am immediately disappointed, to put it mildly.
In July there was confirmation that SM uploading broke legitimate use of backslashes in metadata (mainly in keywords). SM supposedly fixed in mid-July. I couldn't do testing then, but today I tried again, uploading a bunch of recent photos. Dumb me. The backslash "fix" is no longer fixed, if it ever was. Almost all my photos (prior and now) have one or more nested keywords using backslashes, added by my local image file management system. It's a wonderful way to organize by nesting the tags, just like folders on a PC.
But upon uploading today, SM removeed the slash character, just smashing the keywords together. That is precisely what was said to be fixed almost two months ago!!!
Example, photos tagged with a location like this: Places\US\CA\June Lake
SmugMug shows this as PlaceUSCAune Lake
All my photos use backslashes to structure keywords (places, people, events, etc). Before I knew of this bug I uploaded many thousands of photos to SmugMug, and all ended up with the same trashed metadata.
While I was told SM was fixed for new uploads, photos already uploaded would retain the problem. Apparently fixing them requires require re-uploading. But doing that revealed the second metadata problem, it does not get updated using Upload+Replace, only the image gets replaced. Truly fixing the bad metadata would require deleting all the prior photos, then reloading. So I deferred that until after my trip, hoping SM might come up with a better way. Nope,
But, at least new photos would be handled properly. Except, that is not what happened today. They have exactly the same problem, exactly the same major bug in Smug Mug's Upload system. (Note, these were new photos, the Replace bug was not involved...)
So, now I can't upload new photos or update old ones. Pretty stupid that I just paid for a year's subscription. But SM is still doing the damage, a very sad situation.
Also, I read another user saying the LightRoom plug-in only does half the upload+replace too, but the opposite half. The report says it updates metadata correctly, but does NOT update the actual image. I'm just repeating, but also asking if anyone else has observed this? Because it would leave us with NO direct way to update photos.
Not trying to stir up trouble, but action is needed. There has to be trust that SmugMug works reliably. A photo has two parts, image and metadata. It is mandatory that both parts be loaded reliably, and re-loaded reliably, no matter what. Of what use is a professional photo web site that can't be reliably uploaded and then updated? I'd be very happy if someone can demonstrate that my experience and the other report are wrong, but if they are correct, SmugMug should defer working on tweaking gallery styles while they rapidly fix the mechanisms that drive it. (Who cares about decor if the photo+metadata is wrong?)
Last summer I got burned when I trusted SM's Upload+Replace, but why wouldn't I? I didn't discover it doesn't work until showing off my photos to others on SmugMug.com. I stopped that fast. I'm quite sure that once I start steering friends and colleagues to my showcase, they will become SmugMug fans and likely customers. But right now what they would see is a train wreck.
Well, I paid for a year, but for what, exactly? When posting photos online is the entire goal, but the posting system doesn't work, what can we do? Drive our files to Mountain View? Knock knock SM, is anyone home?
@Hpix: we do our best here at SmugMug to thrill all of you. I've hoped that my participation in this discussion is an example of how we commit to listening to our customers, understand their workflows, and then improve the product based on that feedback. In this instance, for example, we stopped our other work to add in the feature to use the backslash as a delineation between keywords.
It's that curiosity that drives me to want to understand further how the backslashes get added and in what manner. In fact, it was your curiosity and helpful responses that pushed us to want to add the functionality for you. I understand the results that you're seeing aren't a thrilling experience but I hope you'll continue to approach this conversation in a way that we can sort it out together, rather than accusing us of malice.
Could you link me to a photo or two where the backslashes did not separate into individual keywords? I'd like to understand if your keyword editing is doing something different than what we expected when it saves the metadata to the photo.
I can assure you, that the update we added to use the
\as a delimeter between keywords has in fact gone live and is still working.Here's an example from Lightroom, in which I used the
\to break up keywords:And you can see in this photo (https://aaronmeyers.smugmug.com/Screenshots/i-755VJgt/A) that the keywords were separated based on the backslash.
I did this about 10 minutes ago by adding the keyword in Lightroom, exporting it to my hard-drive, and then uploading it via the web-uploader to my gallery.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
I pulled up a few of your recent uploads and it was very easy to understand why your photos are having the issue.
Throughout this discussion you mentioned that the photos were separated by a
backslash. The examples you provided in this discussion all used the\so when we updated the metadata processing we updated it to support backslashes, notforward-slashes.It appears your photos are all being uploaded with forward-slashes:
Just to double-check and make sure we weren't incorrectly reading the metadata I pulled your original into Lightroom and it also sees forward-slashes:
Could you please confirm that you will also need forward-slashes to be processed as a delineator?
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
The Lightroom plugin attempts to be smart. If it detects that pixels have changed, then it can update the photo (the pixels). If it detects only the metadata has changed, then it updates only the metadata. And if it detects both have changed, then it updates the photo and the metadata.
This is done by having the plugin automatically detect the photo needs to be republished, or by right-clicking on a photo and choosing
Mark to Republishthen choosing thePublishbutton to initiate the update.If you've only updated the metadata and you want to force it to update the photo, you can select
Mark to Republishand thenPublisha second time and the full photo will be uploaded.Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Each `<keyword>` line tells the software when one keyword ends and the next one begins.
Hierarchical keyword support was later added to image formats and adds a "children" flag that identifies the sub-tags, typically looking something like:
The photos you uploaded all have XMP metadata that looks like:
Because we're reading the keywords based on the metadata spec, which states that keywords are separated by "<keyword>" we see the full string as the keyword. Technically we're following the metadata spec and reading the metadata properly. However, just because we're doing what the metadata spec says doesn't always mean we're thrilling all of you. That's why we wanted to understand how you and your photo editor store these keywords so that we could do extra processing on the photos to get the outcome you'd like.
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Aaron, thank you for replying extensively, I appreciate it.
You are correct, examining the physical photo files, I see they have forward slashes in Keywords. I keep saying back slash because that is what I see and use in my image organizing app JRiver Media Center 23. All my prior and current photos are tagged using this app, so whatever files you might have examined in June-July, or now, should have identical metadata formatting. But now I see forward slashes are what actually gets stored. I apologize for any confusion about this.
Though, in our June-July discussion of this, I thought you investigated and determined SM was removing delimiters that really should be allowed. That might be why I said on July 17, trying to summarize stuff to fix, that BOTH slash delimiters needed to be allowed in SM: "When Uploading photos, existing Keywords with forward or back slash delimiters get trashed. SmugMug Upload process removes the slashes so keywordssmashtogether, making them impossible to use as keywords such as in Smart Galleries."
Of course I am not expecting your team to jump through hoops just because I post a request, but I thought you had previously said that since the specs did not prohibit such delimiters, you would get SM to allow them. (I'm sure you are swamped with both good and crazy requests, hard to keep track...). My off-the-rails post yesterday was simply because I did exactly the same thing in June-July, reported the problem, it was declared fixable then fixed, but yesterday, not fixed. Now I understand, confusion over slash-direction. So now the question is, can the July fix be revisited ASAP?
(But also, if you can give me a specific statement about how JR Media Center should format and/or store Keywords better or differently, I'm happy to pass it on to them. They might react to expert opinion and facts if when the problem and resolution are clearly stated.)
======================================
But there's more in SM to fix, my testing shows a big bug remains: Upload with option Replace Duplicates ignores changed metadata so it can not be replaced. Yet changing Captions, Dates, Keywords is often the entire reason to re-Upload a photo (or hundreds). I do this far more than I diddle with the image, and from other user posts this is a common subsequent action. But as of testing today, it still seems that changing SM's metadata of an already-posted photo is impossible within SmugMug.com using Upload + Replace Duplicates. (I don't think it is relevant that Lightroom possibly can do it, SM should not have a user tool that doesn't do what it says.)
From our June 25 discussion:
@Hpix said: Meta Data being a ONE-TIME action upon Upload/Import, replacing photos does not update their MetaData such as Captions and Keywords. To do that seems to require first deleting the photos in SmugMug, then uploading again as new files. Lots of hassle.
Leftquark said: You are correct and it's something that's driven me nuts for years. I'm still working with the Engineering team to make it so the metadata gets updated on a replace (and am equally frustrated with how long its taking to prioritize it).
I feel that not fixing this FAST is harmful. Would any user of SmugMug.com expect choosing Replace Duplicates does not actually do that 100%? If we agree that a photo has two parts, the image and the metadata, how many users think they Replaced Captions or Dates or Keywords, but actually have not noticed that the metadata part didn't happen? It is a huge job to Upload with Replace Duplicates, then check the Captions and other metadata of hundreds or thousands of photos in SM to see if they are updated or not. This bug seems like red-lights-and-sirens to fix, a fundamental aspect of SmugMug.com that doesn't work.
Sorry to be dramatic, but I feel kind of trapped right now, loving the potential of SmugMug as a wonderful way to showcase my decades of photos (and more to come when my new camera arrives), but not seeing how to proceed due to the Replace and metadata problems.
I know Lightroom's strengths to process photos (er, Develop), but, even considering Lightroom as an upload workaround, and even if LR was free (hah!), it is clumsy and slow for metadata tasks like changing Captions, Keywords, Dates, then re-uploading. I can revise such things MUCH faster using other photo tools, so I do. Please, fix SmugMug.com so it works properly and completely on its own. Thank you.
-- John
One of the reasons we didn't initially do the forward slash was because we see people enter dates into their keywords using forward slashes: for example:
12/31/2017. We haven't quite decided what we want to do here.Definitely appreciate the offer to reach out to JR Media Center. It appears that they've create dtheir own format for metadata keyword hierarchy, using the slashes (I think?). The EXIF format supports hierarchical keywords in the metadata, they just need to make sure they export the keywords in that format (specifically calling out the top level keyword and then its children in the proper XMP format).
Former SmugMug Product Team
aaron AT aaronmphotography DOT com
Website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com
My SmugMug CSS Customizations website: http://www.aaronmphotography.com/Customizations
Bumping this because I'm in a situation where I really, really wish SM could replace my metadata when I "Replace" an image with a newer copy.
blog.jimhphoto.com