Optics trows EFIX-Data from Lightroom away

If I edit a Image out of lightroom, Lr create a tiff with correct EXIF-Data (including rating, etc.)
If Optics save a Image is trows the original data away and create new. This is annoying, because I lose my ratetings, keywords, etc.). In a normal workflow I only edit picutes with a high rate and have in Lr a filter on that. After edit the pictures then are not visiable any more. I have to resorte every EXIF/rate manuel. Not useable for a continuos workflow.
How can I prevent this?

For me, when Optics is applied in LR using “Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments”, the EXIF data is maintained including ratings and keywords.

Can you provide more information about your workflow? What file format are your source images? Are you using “Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments”?

Yes, I’m using “Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments” (newes Lr-CC, German Version)
Settings for edit are, 16bit Tiff, sRGB, no Comp.
The tif created then by Lr includes all EXIF data (so if I don’t store out of optics, EXIF is still fine).

I did some more tests:

  1. Open a Pic out of Lr in Optics
  2. Close Lr
  3. Store in optics
  4. verify EXIF in Explorer … and standard EFIX is there (Camera Modell, etc.), but rate, kewords, etc. are gone.


  1. Open a Pic out of Lr in Optics
  2. Close Optics without storing
  3. verify EXIF in Explorer … all EFIX is there include rate, kewords.

What I found out in addition: If a color mark/rate is set for the picture (e.g. numbers 6-9) optics trow the EFIX-data complete create new blank on!

If needed I can provide screenshots or simply the picture-files.

I am using Lightroom to verify that the ratings and keywords are retained on the copy of the file that Lightroom created when Optics was applied. Can you check this in Lightroom?

Ratings and keywords are gone in Lr (thats the main pain …)
Rest was only to check wether Lr or Optics are mainly the source of the problem

I imported a camera raw image, gave it a rating, and added keywords.

I then applied Optics using “Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments”. After rendering Optics, the rating and keywords were retained.

It is working for me. I am not sure why it is not working for you.

My only assumption would be that it is related to the German version of Lr, more precisely to the German descriptons in EXIF. Can I send you some files directly?

Sure, go ahead and private message me a download link and I will take a look.

When testing with your images, the first time I apply Optics, the rating and keywords are missing. If I delete the newly rendered image and try again, it works. This must be a LR bug. I will report it to Adobe.

Please Check the EFIX manual in Explorer (or any EXIF-Tool) (after Render with Optics). You will find out, the allready before Import to LR (LR completly closed) the EXIF is gone. If you can reproduce this, is clear that not a Lr-Bug :wink:

Thats funny:
Since you write, that on the second render works I try to do the same. But when a open the files I mail to you in LR, the files now all have the correct EXIF back!
I have the option active, that LR write the settings to TIFF, etc (in catalog settings) . May LR rewite this information. But if I use “reread meta-date from file” the rate is all the time 1 lower that before. Verry strage!
I have to retest this in a verifiable way with some fesh files. (with deactivated option to write Meta to tiff)

Here’s what I did:

  1. Imported your before file into LR
  2. Modified the rating and added keywords
  3. The first time applied Optics and rendered, the rating and keywords were removed.
    Image on the left is the first render and you can see that the rating are not there. If you export this version, the ratings and keywords are also gone.
  4. I deleted this version, applied Optics again and then rendered. Now ratings and keywords are present.
  5. I exported this version and opened in PS.

    The keywords are rating are intact.

So, the question is, why is the rating and keywords not there on the first render? Optics renders the same every time, so I think this is a LR issue. More in investigation is needed. Obviously, if this is an issue on our side, we will address it.