Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on March 04, 2007, 11:20:49 am
-
Is there a consensus on whether to let LR convert raw files to DNG format or to keep the camera-native files? I'm using a Mac and my raw files are Canon .CR2s, if it makes any difference.
Jeremy
-
Is there a consensus on whether to let LR convert raw files to DNG format or to keep the camera-native files? I'm using a Mac and my raw files are Canon .CR2s, if it makes any difference.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd like to hear a good answer as well. DNG is being pushed as the standard for RAWs and hopefully it'll become as ubiquitous as TIFF. But I'm curious as to what loss of quality is expected from such conversion. Canon hasn't released their RAW standard so I'm sure there is some, but whether this is something to be concerned of is another matter. DNG should be more future proof than CR2 which is a big issue in the long term.
-
I always convert my raw files to DNG for all the reasons that have been said in the past. Longevity, everything in one file, it's non-proprietary, etc.
As to loss of image quality, there is none. At all. The image data in it's entirety is preserved during conversion. The only thing that may be lost for some cameras is the mystery soup that camera makers place meta data in which Adobe can't reverse-engineer.
For .cr2 files, all of that proprietary mystery-metadata is preserved in the DNG just in case they do figure it out in the future.
-
And, a DNG exported from Lightroom will contain all the metadata created there, such as cropping, colour adjustments, keywords etc, all embedded in the DNG and without the hassle of sidecar XMP files. Of course these are all non-destructive "virtual" adjustments.
Michael
-
I convert to DNG for all files. You may wish to contemplate doing this with the stand alone versus LR since you have options in the former such as size of embedded JPEG. If that's not a big deal to you (and someday it might be) doing the work on import or later in the process within LR works pretty well.
-
And, a DNG exported from Lightroom will contain all the metadata created there, such as cropping, colour adjustments, keywords etc
Though note that virtual copy metadata, snapshots, and history do not currently get embedded with the DNG, nor does its assignment to any stacks or collections.
John
-
Is there a consensus on whether to let LR convert raw files to DNG format or to keep the camera-native files? I'm using a Mac and my raw files are Canon .CR2s, if it makes any difference.
Jeremy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104569\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not sure about consensus, but I do let LR convert rew files to DNG.
-
I am not sure about consensus, but I do let LR convert rew files to DNG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont convert to DNG. I like the ability to use DPP on the RAW file every now and again.
-
I dont convert to DNG. I like the ability to use DPP on the RAW file every now and again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I used to open the stand alone DNG programme from the Desktop icon there was an option of preserving and embedding the original RAW file. I liked this option which gave you the best of best worlds - the DNG as future-proofing, and the original RAW if you felt a bit more secure maintaining it. I don't believe, although I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, that converting to DNG from within Lightroom preserves and embeds the original RAW file within the DNG file. It is for this reason alone that I have not as yet chosen to convert my RAWs to DNG from within Lightroom.
-
I dont convert to DNG. I like the ability to use DPP on the RAW file every now and again.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I used to open the stand alone DNG programme from the Desktop icon there was an option of preserving and embedding the original RAW file. I liked this option which gave you the best of best worlds - the DNG as future-proofing, and the original RAW if you felt a bit more secure maintaining it. I don't believe, although I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, that converting to DNG from within Lightroom preserves and embeds the original RAW file within the DNG file. It is for this reason alone that I have not as yet chosen to convert my RAWs to DNG from within Lightroom.
-
I believe converting to DNG and deleting your RAWs is absolutely crazy.
THe whole idea of RAW is to get the image straight from the camera so one can go back and "redevelop" the images. Since Canon doesn't support DNG I think it is darn stupid to cut yourself the retreat path to those files with the software supplied by your camera manufacturer. THere is proprietary information in the file that no-one else than Canon knows about (this has already been the case with DPP which was updated and allowed to reprocess old RAW files with new algorythms in noise reduction for instance, or Picture Styles). WHen converting to DNG, you would loose this, unless you keep both and I think that's even more stupid (files become unecessarily huge). IF you need to use DNG on some files for exchange with others, just convert when needed, but by God's sake, don't throw away valuable data. It was the whole reason to shoot RAW in the first place.
-
Since DNG first came out, I have debated this issue and wondered how long software will support my camera’s version of RAW. After playing with Lightroom beta 3 and 4 and experimenting with both RAW and DNG versions of my files, I decided start with a completely clean database with Lightroom V1.0 and import all of my RAW files as DNG. Now if we can only get Canon and Nikon to support DNG as their RAW format.
-
I believe converting to DNG and deleting your RAWs is absolutely crazy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree with this point of view.
One of the questions I have about DNG - provided you shoot raw with one of the mega-manufacturers such as Canon or Nikon - is why we would believe that the DNG format is going to be any longer lived than CR2 or NEF. I doubt either of those formats is going to be unsupported by any raw processor, no matter how obscure. If that day arrives, and assuming DNG is still supported, can we not convert to DNG then?
In the meantime, there are more raw processors that support CR2 and NEF than support DNG. For example, Capture NX does not support DNG. I find that for about 10-15% of my raw files, Capture NX gives a noticeably better conversion than do Lightroom or Raw Developer, my other converters. So there is a real drawback to converting to DNG today.
I do agree it's nice that DNG is all one metadata package, with no sidecars. This was a problem for me when I used iView MediaPro. However, I've switched now to Lightroom. I would imagine more DAM systems will start managing sidecars along with the image files.
-
I believe converting to DNG and deleting your RAWs is absolutely crazy.
THe whole idea of RAW is to get the image straight from the camera so one can go back and "redevelop" the images. Since Canon doesn't support DNG I think it is darn stupid to cut yourself the retreat path to those files with the software supplied by your camera manufacturer. THere is proprietary information in the file that no-one else than Canon knows about (this has already been the case with DPP which was updated and allowed to reprocess old RAW files with new algorythms in noise reduction for instance, or Picture Styles). WHen converting to DNG, you would loose this, unless you keep both and I think that's even more stupid (files become unecessarily huge). IF you need to use DNG on some files for exchange with others, just convert when needed, but by God's sake, don't throw away valuable data. It was the whole reason to shoot RAW in the first place.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Unless you have an older camera (pre CR2 for example) all data is preserved. Even if some of it is not converted to readable info in the DNG, it is maintained in case it can be deciphered in the future.
The data is only valuable if you can use it. If you are not using the software provided with the camera maker it doesn't matter if it's maintained or not since you aren't using that data with third-pary software. But, it is being stored in case Canon/Nikon/Etc have a change of heart.
One of the questions I have about DNG - provided you shoot raw with one of the mega-manufacturers such as Canon or Nikon - is why we would believe that the DNG format is going to be any longer lived than CR2 or NEF.
There is no guarantee that DNG will last longer than proprietary formats. However, DNG is publicly documented which is a very significant thing. That is what makes DNG considerably more likely to be accessible in the future.
If that day arrives, and assuming DNG is still supported, can we not convert to DNG then?
If a converter still exists for them for which there is no more of a guarantee that will happen as there is that proprietary formats will continue being supported by the manufacturer.
-
If a converter still exists for them for which there is no more of a guarantee that will happen as there is that proprietary formats will continue being supported by the manufacturer.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=105485\")
As a side note according to Canon's website they are not making nor do they plan on making divers for Windows Vista for the 300D, the 10D and earlier models of DSLRs. How long will it be before they also drop them for RAW support?
[a href=\"http://www.canon-europe.com/vista/en/compatibility_table/dslr.asp]http://www.canon-europe.com/vista/en/compa..._table/dslr.asp[/url]
-
The data is only valuable if you can use it. If you are not using the software provided with the camera maker it doesn't matter if it's maintained or not since you aren't using that data with third-pary software. But, it is being stored in case Canon/Nikon/Etc have a change of heart.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why would you "burn the bridge" to using software provided by the manufacturer? If Canon or Nikon was coming up with great software to edit your RAWs, would you, by principle, discard this solution? I wouldn't. This has already happened with Canon, to a certain extend. DPP has improved since the first version, and their noise reduction algorythms are put into DPP 2.2 (I believe), which I can use on my 20D AND my 300D (as well as the new Picture Styles, if I wanted to).
On the other points, because I do have DNG converter, if the proprietary RAW is dropped by the manufacturer, I can then convert. By keeping the RAW file, all my options are open; not if I delete them. It's that simple.
As far as all data being present in the DNG file, that may be true (I'm not a specialist), but in that case it still remains in the DNG file as proprietary, ie not understandable if you don't know what it means. As a consequence, the format being open does not mean that all data is readily usable. This is the reason that softawere supporting DNG need to support the original RAW format to support the DNG for this camera. A lot of people (including me), thought that softawre supporting DNG would have to bother developing specific support for new cameras, as long as DNG COnverter supported it, but it proved wrong, for the reason above. DNG does NOT provide a standard RAW format, but a standard file wrapping of the RAW datam to my understanding.
-
I'm using LR 2.2 on my MacPro 8-core running OS X 10.5.6.
I started converting RAW file archives of various Canon DSLRs that I owned over the years (10D, 20D, 1DMkII and 1DsMkII) along with RAW files from my current Canon DSLR 40D and 1DsMkIII to DNG format. I have burned the original RAW files to DVDs for backups. I do all of my RAW to DNG conversions in LR.
All is going well with DNG files using LR and PS CS4. I love not having to deal with sidecar files.
But I have a few DNG files that give me the "sidecar file missing" question mark icons on the LR Library view. There are no sidecar files in the same folder as the offending DNG files as they were deleted along with the original RAW file during the conversion process.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get rid of the "?" icon indicating that the sidecar file is missing?
Thanks.
Bud James
-
...
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get rid of the "?" icon indicating that the sidecar file is missing?
Thanks.
Bud James
I also see the "?" with a few old files. I simply click on the "?" icon and - IIRC - Lightroom offers to update the files (in oher words: LR creates XMP sidecar files).
-
Bud....
Although I do not do it, I was going to suggest what you do which is also what I've heard some other folks do.....and that is once the RAW file is converted to DNG, burn the RAW files to another form of backup (external drives, DVDs, etc.) as the "original" file. For probably $200 (US) a year or less you could save all of your original RAW files as ORIGINAL and never touch them again unless you really needed to go back to them; meanwhile using the DNG files as your current digital "negative".
This approach would seem to provide the best of both arguments.
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
I'm using LR 2.2 on my MacPro 8-core running OS X 10.5.6.
I started converting RAW file archives of various Canon DSLRs that I owned over the years (10D, 20D, 1DMkII and 1DsMkII) along with RAW files from my current Canon DSLR 40D and 1DsMkIII to DNG format. I have burned the original RAW files to DVDs for backups. I do all of my RAW to DNG conversions in LR.
All is going well with DNG files using LR and PS CS4. I love not having to deal with sidecar files.
But I have a few DNG files that give me the "sidecar file missing" question mark icons on the LR Library view. There are no sidecar files in the same folder as the offending DNG files as they were deleted along with the original RAW file during the conversion process.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to get rid of the "?" icon indicating that the sidecar file is missing?
Thanks.
Bud James
-
I do burn the original RAW files to DVDs before converting to DNG and deleting them from my LR 2.2 database.
I just converted a bunch more CR2 files and the resulting DNGs had the "?" in the upper right corner indicating that the sidecar file is missing. Since they are DNG files, I don't understand why LR is looking for a sidecar file in the first place.
With this batch of converted files, clicking on the "?" made it disappear from the thumbnail on about 50% of the images, but it's a pain to click on each file one at a time. Is there a way to accomplish this in a batch mode?
Also, the original files that started me on this thread, the "?" doesn't disappear when I click on the DNG frame in grid mode. Any more suggestions there to get ride of the erroneous "sidecar file missing" message on my converted DNG files?
Thanks.
Bud James
-
I do burn the original RAW files to DVDs before converting to DNG and deleting them from my LR 2.2 database.
I just converted a bunch more CR2 files and the resulting DNGs had the "?" in the upper right corner indicating that the sidecar file is missing. Since they are DNG files, I don't understand why LR is looking for a sidecar file in the first place.
With this batch of converted files, clicking on the "?" made it disappear from the thumbnail on about 50% of the images, but it's a pain to click on each file one at a time. Is there a way to accomplish this in a batch mode?
Also, the original files that started me on this thread, the "?" doesn't disappear when I click on the DNG frame in grid mode. Any more suggestions there to get ride of the erroneous "sidecar file missing" message on my converted DNG files?
Thanks.
Bud James
Not sure of the precise answer but have you tried deleting the RAW files using Finder/Explorer (as opposed to in LR), and then Synching the folder in LR to update metadata and file listing?
-
Not sure of the precise answer but have you tried deleting the RAW files using Finder/Explorer (as opposed to in LR), and then Synching the folder in LR to update metadata and file listing?
Nick, what I tried before your post was to copy the folder out to another location, delete the folder in LR and the reimport. That made the "?" mark disappear. However, I have thousands of images inside dozens of folders, to I was hoping for an easier and faster solution.
Cheers.
Bud James
-
Nick, what I tried before your post was to copy the folder out to another location, delete the folder in LR and the reimport. That made the "?" mark disappear. However, I have thousands of images inside dozens of folders, to I was hoping for an easier and faster solution.
Cheers.
Bud James
OK, but try the synch feature anyway, you never know...
-
My understand is converting a raw file into a dng will ensure that Adobe products will be able to open the file? Beyond that, you have no certainty. Also, any file adjustments will not be read by Adobe if they are made by a non-Adobe program. I have been saving my worked files as tif's and I also have the raw version converted as a dng.
I never worried too much about the file format used to save the original file. My concern was always saving the final version, which has all of my final adjustments, including PS layers. I decided tif files were more likely to be supported by future programs than any of the newer formats.
-
I started out life in the digital world thinking that DNG would be the "salvation." I don't use the format now, as much as I would like to, because:
1. LR & ACR seem to be indifferent to RAW file format
2. Some other converters I use cannot take DNG as inputs
3. Using DNG (today) is an unnecessary burning of bridges.
4. I don't have a sidecar issue with CR2 files because I store the metadata in the database (backed up daily)
5. Adobe is no more or less likely to survive than are either Canon or Nikon
6. If it becomes needful, one can always convert to DNG down the road
7. With billions of CR2 files out there, converters will always be there.
8. In 10 years (maybe more, maybe less), I believe that some new technology will render all current file formats obsolete and that we will be migrating all existing files to that new technology and this discussion will be meaningless.
Nonetheless, I do wish that Nikon and Canon would give up their proprietary formats and go with DNG. It would make their customer's lives so much easier to say nothing of richer. Software publishers can provide more features for the same dollar if they don't have to decode new file formats every 30 days.
-
I started out life in the digital world thinking that DNG would be the "salvation." I don't use the format now, as much as I would like to, because:
1. LR & ACR seem to be indifferent to RAW file format
2. Some other converters I use cannot take DNG as inputs
3. Using DNG (today) is an unnecessary burning of bridges.
4. I don't have a sidecar issue with CR2 files because I store the metadata in the database (backed up daily)
5. Adobe is no more or less likely to survive than are either Canon or Nikon
6. If it becomes needful, one can always convert to DNG down the road
7. With billions of CR2 files out there, converters will always be there.
8. In 10 years (maybe more, maybe less), I believe that some new technology will render all current file formats obsolete and that we will be migrating all existing files to that new technology and this discussion will be meaningless.
Nonetheless, I do wish that Nikon and Canon would give up their proprietary formats and go with DNG. It would make their customer's lives so much easier to say nothing of richer. Software publishers can provide more features for the same dollar if they don't have to decode new file formats every 30 days.
Well said - +1 for me to the above.
-
The beauty and true usefulness of DNG reveals itself when you share the same files amongst other members of a production team. DNG is also recognized in many familiar DAM applications, such as cumulus which my employer uses. Because cumulus works with DNGs, our clients and marketing managers have full access to the raw files, which cumulus faithful converts to jpegs or other formats as they request. All done repeated from the same master file. A few managers also have PS CS3 and they love the ability of having a virtual minilab on their desktop to develop and tweak their own versions. The benefit is a huge time savings for our designers.
-
This thread has been interesting reading.
I've been wondering whether I should be using DNG myself, but there is a sort of fundamental problem about DNG that has been bothering me. Maybe somebody here knows the answer.
The "meaning" of the numeric pixel values in a RAW file (i.e. the correspondence between the captured photons and the numeric values) are relative to the engineering properties of the particular sensor (and its supporting electronics). These engineering properties are not only different for each different camera, they are regarded as proprietary by (I think all) camera manufacturers. Anybody that makes any kind of a RAW converter has know a lot about these sensor properties for each camera. (If you are the camera manufacturer, you presumably know everything you need to know and can put that knowledge into either the in-camera firmware RAW converter or your own proprietary software RAW converter. Everybody else has to do some kind of reverse engineering in order to write a RAW converter.)
Now, lets look at the image data in a DNG file (lets say one where the RAW data is not embedded). I can think of two possibilities:
A) The numbers in the image data pixels are copied exactly from the raw file.
B) The numbers in the image data pixels have undergone a conversion to some kind of a universal grey-scale space.
If A), then DNG files still need to undergo RAW conversion in a camera-specific way, and are thus not really "universal". If B), then the DNG files are no longer camera-relative, but ARE relative to the quality of the knowledge that the convert-to-DNG software had about the camera (and, some might argue, are not really "RAW files" anymore).
Anybody know whether its "A" or "B" (or something else)?
Thanks.
--Milt--
-
The "meaning" of the numeric pixel values in a RAW file (i.e. the correspondence between the captured photons and the numeric values) are relative to the engineering properties of the particular sensor (and its supporting electronics). These engineering properties are not only different for each different camera, they are regarded as proprietary by (I think all) camera manufacturers. Anybody that makes any kind of a RAW converter has know a lot about these sensor properties for each camera
What you mean to be so important is the spectral responses of the color filters. The Adobe DNG converter adds some metadata to the raw file, which describe these characteristics. It is disputed if this approach is equivalent to the camera makers' own raw conversion, but *now, with the customizable profiles*, Adobe's conversion became better re the colors.
The vast majority of users I have read from are using ACR for the integrated workflow and for the adjustment and color space options; some are occasionally turning to the "home" raw converter in color critical cases, but I guess that will become much less with the new profiles.
-
This thread has been interesting reading.
I've been wondering whether I should be using DNG myself, but there is a sort of fundamental problem about DNG that has been bothering me. Maybe somebody here knows the answer.
The "meaning" of the numeric pixel values in a RAW file (i.e. the correspondence between the captured photons and the numeric values) are relative to the engineering properties of the particular sensor (and its supporting electronics). These engineering properties are not only different for each different camera, they are regarded as proprietary by (I think all) camera manufacturers. Anybody that makes any kind of a RAW converter has know a lot about these sensor properties for each camera. (If you are the camera manufacturer, you presumably know everything you need to know and can put that knowledge into either the in-camera firmware RAW converter or your own proprietary software RAW converter. Everybody else has to do some kind of reverse engineering in order to write a RAW converter.)
Now, lets look at the image data in a DNG file (lets say one where the RAW data is not embedded). I can think of two possibilities:
A) The numbers in the image data pixels are copied exactly from the raw file.
The numbers in the image data pixels have undergone a conversion to some kind of a universal grey-scale space.
If A), then DNG files still need to undergo RAW conversion in a camera-specific way, and are thus not really "universal". If , then the DNG files are no longer camera-relative, but ARE relative to the quality of the knowledge that the convert-to-DNG software had about the camera (and, some might argue, are not really "RAW files" anymore).
Anybody know whether its "A" or "B" (or something else)?
Thanks.
--Milt--
The answer is (A), the pixels are copied exactly. What is added (at least in DNG V1.1) are a pair of color conversion matrixes that describe how to get from "sensor space" to "image space" (plus some other bits and pieces). Those matrixes are Adobe developed, although usually with input from the camera manufacturers (with some exceptions!). But there isn't that much secret or complicated about them; pretty much every raw developer does their own color conversion firstly to get their own look-and-feel, but secondly because the color conversion is intimately tied to other things, e.g., color temperature adjustments.
In DNG V1.2 things are little more complicated - you can have embedded profiles that allow a lot more flexibility in manipulating color reproduction, but the principle remains the same.
Sandy
-
I speak only for me.. Canon 1D mark 2, mostly landscape
Currently the ‘perceived benefits’ of DNG do not justify the problems created. I do not convert to DNG.
For serious shots that may make a decent large print I use DPP (v3.5.1). I think it works best for getting the most out of the raw file. After raw convert I use photoshop for post and print.
I use lightroom for processing event shoots with hundreds of shots. Use: web, email, or small prints (8x10 max).
The benefit of DNG goes to 3ird party software developers. They don’t have to keep up with the growing list of OEM raw formats.
The problem with DNG is the extra time and space, with no benefit to me. I can convert to DNG later on an as-needed basis. I keep the native raw files for the same reasons others have provided above.
DNG is good idea if and when it’s adopted universally by OEMs. Not yet.
-
Phase One users beware - if you convert your Phase files to DNG, Capture One will not be able to "recognize" the lens you used and apply its automatic lens corrections!
I no longer convert my P45+ files to DNG.
Bill
-
Thanks to Panopeeper and sandymc for the replies on the nature of DNG files.
Keeping the original bits plus a camera-specific "conversion rule" is better than either (A) or (B). The files have the advantage of (A) of being universal, even if (like both (A) and (B)) they are also dependent on the quality of the knowledge that the convert-to-DNG software had about the camera. However, this scheme means one can presumably later improve things if better camera-specific knowledge becomes available.
--Milt--
-
For a production environment there are a couple of useful features of DNG files over RAWs like CR2 or NEF.
1. They are slightly smaller if you don't include the original RAW data - not necessary if you back up the original RAWs 'just in case'.
2. The embedded preview properly reflects any adjustments made which is essential if you need to build web galleries using any of the DAMs. It's also faster since the corrected jpegs are already created and available to 3rd party apps.
3. For fast lo-res file generation ( eg submission to client for approval) using DNGs and RAW Extractor or Photomechanic is way faster than fully processing the original RAWs to jpegs in ACR, LR or C1Pro. The proccessing has already been done, all you need to do is pull out the jpeg preview.
Total time taken in these tasks is the same for DNG or RAW, the difference is when you spend the time. There;s nothing worse than having to process out a bunch of RAWs to a tight deadline. Better to convert to DNG right after the shoot, file in a DAM and then you can produce files quickly down the track since the time consuming RAW processing step has already been done. It obviously has to be done at some point, I just prefer to do it once at the beginning rather than as needed later when I may be in a hurry.
The geeky side of DNG does not interest me, it's the practical aspects that make me a user.
-
Crash or corrupt your LR database. Just start a new one and re-import the DNGs. All edits preserved. Just came back from a week in Vegas, my companies National Sales Meeting. 2000 shots cut to 475 keepers, all with edits, key words and names with captions. Copied the DNGs to a backup drive. Original drive went south on me during my return travels. Just started a new one and re-imported the DNGs. Three days work preserved in five minutes. I can put up with a little more noise in the pixel peeping department.
-
Original drive went south on me during my return travels. Just started a new one and re-imported the DNGs. Three days work preserved in five minutes.
This has nothing to do with DNG. ACR is creating XMP files, which are MUCH easier to save (7 KB instead of many megabytes).
Furthermore, it is *absolutely brainless* to save the *original raw data* in order to save the adjustments. Add to this, that I can keep several XMP files for the same raw file, which is not possible if storing the XMP data in the DNG file, at least this is so with ACR 4. It is a horrendeous solution (instead of packeging several sets of adjustments in one XMP file), but it is a solution.
-
....Add to this, that I can keep several XMP files for the same raw file, which is not possible if storing the XMP data in the DNG file , at least this is so with ACR 4.
That "objection" is obsolete. You can save "snapshots" in the DNG which ACR5 or LR can access (as can ACR4 via a Bridge script).
-
This has nothing to do with DNG. ACR is creating XMP files, which are MUCH easier to save (7 KB instead of many megabytes).
"Much easier to save"? How so? What "many megabytes"?
A basic DNG conversion comes in slightly smaller than the raw file it was made from, including the adjustment data, and as John says, including versions (snapshots) of adjustment data too.
And one file is always easier to backup and otherwise manage than two. Sidecar files always were a kludge, time to move on.
What part of the usefulness of a fully corrected embedded preview image do people not understand? Without it you can only do any meaningful exports in a RAW converter. With it you can use any app that can access the preview. Try generating a web gallery from a bunch of RAWs without using Bridge, LR, C1 Pro etc. All the extra power of Expressions Media or Photo Mechanic is lost to you with basic RAWs since the images they make look awful - 'cos they are not RAW convertors. Even the catalog thumbs made by DAMs look bad when made directly from basic RAW files.
It's OK not to use DNG if you don't choose to, it's your prerogative, but please don't go into denial about the format's numerous and genuinely useful aspects.
-
And one file is always easier to backup and otherwise manage than two. Sidecar files always were a kludge, time to move on.
I agree, but did have a similar conversation last night with "the big guy" who also suggested that one convert to DNG after doing much of the work in LR/ACR so you don't have to back up the entire DNG to in essence back up the tiny metadata edits. I still like the DNG route for the reasons you and others expressed and the back up happens while I'm sleeping automatically. I've also been a lot happier with auto metadata update preferences in LR since it was fixed many releases ago. Doesn't seem to bog down. Plus, if you're working with rendered images, the idea that you have to back up, or spend time saving is and always has been necessary.
Would it be cool if the metadata could somehow be saved or backed up without the rest of the Raw? Sure. But I don't know I'd ask the Adobe team to take precious time away from other functionality to do so.
The question I have is, would leaving the Raw data alone, only backing up the side car be more or less "reliable" over time in terms of the data handling than saving often, the entire DNG?
-
I agree, but did have a similar conversation last night with "the big guy" who also suggested that one convert to DNG after doing much of the work in LR/ACR so you don't have to back up the entire DNG to in essence back up the tiny metadata edits.
Good point - one potential disadvantage of DNGs is that (if set) the jpeg preview will be rebuilt everytime you made a change to the RAW settings. This is time consuming.
Best practice - fully adjust the RAW file first and then convert to DNG once you are happy. Converting to DNG on import does not really make sense and is quite inefficient.
-
Good point - one potential disadvantage of DNGs is that (if set) the jpeg preview will be rebuilt everytime you made a change to the RAW settings. This is time consuming.
But depending on the quality set, there's a lot you can do with that JPEG. Peter Krogh showed me pretty large ink jet prints made from these JPEGs and they were quite impressive. Having that kind of data for applications that can use the JPEG and leave the Raw alone makes this an interesting workflow tool. Add DNG profiles for rendering tweaks, its really getting interesting.
-
Best practice - fully adjust the RAW file first and then convert to DNG once you are happy. Converting to DNG on import does not really make sense and is quite inefficient.
For some it might be best practices, for others not so much. I think a lot depends on the quantity of images you have to process, how much you can be done while you're doing something else and your limitations on storage space.
My LR catalog has less than 20K images. If I import and convert 100 images to DNG at a sitting, not a problem in my workflow. Someone doing 1000 a day, 10K a day, that's a different story. For me, I want to convert from the start of ingestion, build decent sized previews, add metadata/keywords and convert to DNG to verify to some degree, the integrity of the Raw before I format my card. I want Standard or maybe 1:1 previews built before I get started.
I've read Krogh's book and Resnick's book on workflow. I've got a lot of good ideas from each, plus my own playing around to get a system that works well for me. I recognize it could be totally counter productive for someone else. Just look at 100 photographers desktops to get an idea of their differing ideas of filing data.
-
For some it might be best practices, for others not so much. I think a lot depends on the quantity of images you have to process, how much you can be done while you're doing something else and your limitations on storage space.
I guess I meant 'best practice' if you are using a DNG workflow - I accept that the DNG workflow is not suited for everyone. Lot's of people shoot only jpegs, some through ignorance but some because it works best for them - many press guys I know are obliged to shoot jpeg because that's what the newspaper's photo dept has specified.
Horses for courses as they say - I find lots to like with a DNG workflow but as always, YMMV.
-
I guess I meant 'best practice' if you are using a DNG workflow - I accept that the DNG workflow is not suited for everyone. Lot's of people shoot only jpegs, some through ignorance but some because it works best for them - many press guys I know are obliged to shoot jpeg because that's what the newspaper's photo dept has specified.
I'm working 100% Raw. I was implying that for "my workflow", low volume, best practices are to convert to DNG as I ingest into LR. The speed hit doesn't bother me. At such a time that I'm ready to edit the images (picks, deletes, etc), I want DNG, full sized previews built as I very often zoom in at 100% to inspect sharpness. There's no question there is a processing and time hit for doing this (I usually do this when I'm away from the computer). So the speed hit isn't a speed hit for me. At such a time I'm ready to view the images, I want all that stuff over and done with, even if I end up tossing some of the DNGs into the trash.
Now here's a possible issue I need to test further. Lets say you start with a clean, virgin LR catalog. You import and convert to DNG, 100 images, ask for full sized previews which are (I believe) stored in the preview database, Catalog Previews.lrdata. Say its now 20mb in size. Now you delete 99 images. One would expect that the Catalog Previews.lrdata would shrink in size. It doesn't appear to, even using the optimize catalog settings. Of course, this doesn't appear to be a DNG issue only. When I imported DNGs and CR2's, looked at the Catalog Previews.lrdata, deleted nearly all the images from the catalog and optimized it, the Catalog Previews.lrdata didn't shrink.
-
Andrew....
Is it possible that the previews for deleted files exist until their expiration date anyway? Meaning....if you set to the preview for "delete after 30 days" that even if you delete a file that the preview will remain until it expires?
Cheers.....
Todd in Chicago
P.S. BTW....I did not get a chance to come up and say hello, but I was at the Epson Print Academy yesterday at the Hyatt.....you guys were great! Thanks for making color management even easier to understand. Great job by all and I had a wonderful, educational, and inspirational time! Hey...I hope you guys took Henry to a nice place to eat! That guy is so cool.......
I'm working 100% Raw. I was implying that for "my workflow", low volume, best practices are to convert to DNG as I ingest into LR. The speed hit doesn't bother me. At such a time that I'm ready to edit the images (picks, deletes, etc), I want DNG, full sized previews built as I very often zoom in at 100% to inspect sharpness. There's no question there is a processing and time hit for doing this (I usually do this when I'm away from the computer). So the speed hit isn't a speed hit for me. At such a time I'm ready to view the images, I want all that stuff over and done with, even if I end up tossing some of the DNGs into the trash.
Now here's a possible issue I need to test further. Lets say you start with a clean, virgin LR catalog. You import and convert to DNG, 100 images, ask for full sized previews which are (I believe) stored in the preview database, Catalog Previews.lrdata. Say its now 20mb in size. Now you delete 99 images. One would expect that the Catalog Previews.lrdata would shrink in size. It doesn't appear to, even using the optimize catalog settings. Of course, this doesn't appear to be a DNG issue only. When I imported DNGs and CR2's, looked at the Catalog Previews.lrdata, deleted nearly all the images from the catalog and optimized it, the Catalog Previews.lrdata didn't shrink.
-
Andrew....
Is it possible that the previews for deleted files exist until their expiration date anyway? Meaning....if you set to the preview for "delete after 30 days" that even if you delete a file that the preview will remain until it expires?
I don't think that's useful behavior. Plus I have the preferences set for never. But I'd expect that deleted images would produce deleted previews.
P.S. BTW....I did not get a chance to come up and say hello, but I was at the Epson Print Academy yesterday at the Hyatt.....you guys were great! Thanks for making color management even easier to understand. Great job by all and I had a wonderful, educational, and inspirational time! Hey...I hope you guys took Henry to a nice place to eat! That guy is so cool.......
Thanks! We ate both nights at Gibson's a block away. Very good!
-
Now here's a possible issue I need to test further. Lets say you start with a clean, virgin LR catalog. You import and convert to DNG, 100 images, ask for full sized previews which are (I believe) stored in the preview database, Catalog Previews.lrdata. Say its now 20mb in size. Now you delete 99 images. One would expect that the Catalog Previews.lrdata would shrink in size. It doesn't appear to, even using the optimize catalog settings. Of course, this doesn't appear to be a DNG issue only. When I imported DNGs and CR2's, looked at the Catalog Previews.lrdata, deleted nearly all the images from the catalog and optimized it, the Catalog Previews.lrdata didn't shrink.
Sounds like a question for the LR User Forums. I don't use LR catalogs so cannot help.
I use Expressions Media which is why I like the DNG format. All preview thumbs and enlarged images look great since they are derived from the embedded jpeg. It's also fast this way as ExMedia does not have to do much except pull out the previews.
Here's a good time saver. If you generate a web gallery in LR from DNGs LR re-processes all the RAW data to web size images. It seems not to use the embedded previews - d'uh. Consequently it takes about 10-15 times longer to make a web gallery than Photo Mechanic or ExMedia which simply use the already converted jpeg previews. Go figure.
If there is a way to make LR use embedded previews from DNGs, even on import and preview, then I have not seen it - I'll be happy to be shown how, if it can be done. Bridge is the same, 100% previews are generated from the RAW data, no attempt is made to access the 100% size embedded previews which are surely good enough for checking sharpness etc.
-
Sounds like a question for the LR User Forums. I don't use LR catalogs so cannot help.
Yup, it was there! Thanks to Ian:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b63219 (http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b63219)
-
Hmmmm....am I understanding that right?
If you have a hi-res cam and use 1:1 previews, they will never be deleted???? Is that right?
Cheers...
Todd in Chicago
Yup, it was there! Thanks to Ian:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b63219 (http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b63219)
-
Hmmmm....am I understanding that right?
If you have a hi-res cam and use 1:1 previews, they will never be deleted???? Is that right?
If the preview is less than half the size of the image, its deleted as we would hope. The largest preview I can set in LR is 2048. My 5D and now 5DMII are more than twice the preview requested (2048) so the high rez previews are eventually deleted.