Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

  1. #1
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    I'm now on LR 6.3

    I keep my image files on an external HDD (with two further backups).
    Images are kept in folders by month, and months are inside years: so, 2015 contains 2015-01 through to 2015-12.

    I add new images to the external HDD, and then synchronise LR by right-clicking on the folder.

    Previously, I could just click on 2015; but when I try this now, I'll be told there are 350 (or whatever number) of files to synchronise. I click synchronise, things seem to happen, but then I get a message to say "no files to synchronise".

    If I click on the sub-folder 2015-12, I'm told there are say, 299 files to synchronise; and LR will then synchronise without problems.

    So I now have to hunt through all of 2015 to find the (apparently) unsynchronised 51 files.

    Anyone else have this stupid problem?
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Do you have the "Do not import duplicate files" option turned on? If so, turn it off and LR should then import everything. Duplicates will have a number appended to the file name so you can then search for that and resolve unnecessary duplicates.
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Do you have the "Do not import duplicate files" option turned on? If so, turn it off and LR should then import everything. Duplicates will have a number appended to the file name so you can then search for that and resolve unnecessary duplicates.
    Thanks, Godfrey. I discovered I was out of date, and on 6.2, though I thought I'd updated. So got 6.3 (with some difficulty, as the net connection here is very flaky). Import seems to be back to normal; I also tried what you suggested. Initially, LR wanted to import 40,000 images; but gradually reduced this to about 1200. They all seem to be duplicated, chiefly images that I'd worked on quite a long time ago (in Lr 1 or LR2 days), often TIF files. That's not really a problem; I'd rather have duplicates than be left thinking that there are images that haven't been imported.
    Sláinte

    Robert.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    I'd strongly consider upgrading to the CC version of Adobe. It's cheaper than buying annual upgrades and they're going to stop putting new features in the standalone versions.
    Brad Husick

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    I'd strongly consider upgrading to the CC version of Adobe. It's cheaper than buying annual upgrades and they're going to stop putting new features in the standalone versions.
    That's a long running debate, Brad, and not relevant to the issue Robert had.

    I only use Lightroom 99.9% of the time. The least expensive CC package for photographers includes LR and PS-CC for $10 per month (on the current special), or $120 per year. Historically, LR gets a major update approximately every 18 months (since 2006), and the standalone update costs $79. So I'd be spending more than double in order to have access to PS-CC, which I don't use anymore, and for a couple of minor updates that I've never needed.

    Meanwhile, the disastrously broken update (LR 6.2/6.2.1) was a lot harder to expunge from your system if you were using CC rather than standalone LR.

    In other words, there's no upside to switching to CC at the present time, for me, and for a good number of other folks if my sense of all the comments made about it on the various forums have any credibility.

    G

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Campbell View Post
    Thanks, Godfrey. I discovered I was out of date, and on 6.2, though I thought I'd updated. So got 6.3 (with some difficulty, as the net connection here is very flaky). Import seems to be back to normal; I also tried what you suggested. Initially, LR wanted to import 40,000 images; but gradually reduced this to about 1200. They all seem to be duplicated, chiefly images that I'd worked on quite a long time ago (in Lr 1 or LR2 days), often TIF files. That's not really a problem; I'd rather have duplicates than be left thinking that there are images that haven't been imported.
    Good to hear you've gotten it sorted out, Robert.

    LR 6.2 was a badly broken release, I'm glad you're on to 6.3 which is far far better.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    I'd strongly consider upgrading to the CC version of Adobe. It's cheaper than buying annual upgrades and they're going to stop putting new features in the standalone versions.
    I'm not entirely sure of this, though it's as much not wishing to be beholden to Adobe for ever, rather than just a one-off.

    What I haven't discovered is how much net access is required. I'm temporarily in a rented house; there is fibre-optic in the area, but the older houses are connected to another cabinet which is too far away for any broadband. And no, British Telecom won't connect to the nearer fibre-optic cabinet. The result is that most people here have a 'tooway' satellite connection; there is a dish on the house, but no internal box of tricks. So I'm reliant on mobile wireless, and the signal is very erratic here...I can manage emails and forum browsing, but not always much else.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  7. #7
    Senior Member bradhusick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    2,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    53

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Don't forget that you're actually getting Lightroom and Photoshop for a combined $10 a month. There are still many things you can only do in Photoshop (like handling text, content-aware fill, advanced panoramas, multi-layer composites, etc.

    It's a personal choice and for me it represents a good value.

    Not much connection online is required - it's meant to run on disconnected laptops too.
    Brad Husick

  8. #8
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Lightroom 6.3 synchronisation

    Quote Originally Posted by bradhusick View Post
    Don't forget that you're actually getting Lightroom and Photoshop for a combined $10 a month. There are still many things you can only do in Photoshop (like handling text, content-aware fill, advanced panoramas, multi-layer composites, etc.

    It's a personal choice and for me it represents a good value.

    Not much connection online is required - it's meant to run on disconnected laptops too.
    Fair enough, though I hardly use PS; for almost everything, LR is sufficient.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •