Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1  (Read 3641 times)

jwlimages

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« on: April 08, 2008, 01:31:48 pm »

Hi,

Before I jump into using the v.2 beta, I have a concern I hope someone can answer:

All my RAW files are organized into a folder hierarchy, so I bring them into LR catalog using the "leave in place" model, and have LR write edits into XMP files.

Now if I import into v.2 the same RAW files I've been working with in v.1.x, again using that "leave in place" model, will v.2 write it's edits into the XMPs that LR v.1 was using? (or overwrite the v.1-generated XMP files)

If so, my v.1 catalog could be screwed - e.g., I assume LR v.1 can't read some of the v.2 edits (new features) from the revised XMPs. So it would seem safest to "import via copy" for v.2, and copy the RAW files to a different directory. Or does v.2 do something to avoid this problem?

I don't want to find out how this works the hard way, and am surprised to not see any mention of this anywhere yet. So I would appreciate any guidance shared by people using the v.2 beta. Oh yeah, I'm on a Mac OS 10.4.11, if that matters.

Thanks,

John Lund
JWL Images
Emeryville, CA
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2008, 02:00:30 pm »

It was my understanding that they really wanted you to work on copies of the original files.  I'd be concerned.
Logged

francofit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
    • http://
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2008, 02:11:34 pm »

Quote
....So it would seem safest to "import via copy" for v.2, and copy the RAW files to a different directory. Or does v.2 do something to avoid this problem?
...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My humble advice is to use the Beta only on copies of the pictures files on your 1.3.x Library.
Among the first lines of the Adobe Release Notes read:
Quote
Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® 2.0 beta Release Notes
.... While data loss is not expected, this is a very early ‘beta’ quality build and you should always work on
duplicates of files that are securely backed up.
...
Develop settings applied in Lightroom 2.0 beta are not guaranteed to transfer correctly to the
final version of 2.0. This is particularly true for localized corrections.
Logged
Franco

jwlimages

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2008, 02:31:26 pm »

Hi again,

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like you're confirming my inclination to use v.2 only on a different directory/folder. It's just that "work on duplicates" is less clear when it comes to RAW format, since the RAWs themselves are never modified by either LR v.1 or v.2.

Guess I will just pick some parts of my multi-gig folders of RAW files & copy them for work in v.2.

Regards,

John
Logged

francofit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 142
    • http://
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2008, 02:46:18 pm »

Quote
...It's just that "work on duplicates" is less clear when it comes to RAW format, since the RAWs themselves are never modified by either LR v.1 or v.2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes you are right, but -as you probably know- if you have saved in v.1 to .xml then inadvertedly or on purpose you save again from v.2 then the Beta unsupported warning does make sense,
 i.e. new unsupported features will be embedded into the modified .xml.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 02:49:02 pm by francofit »
Logged
Franco

jwlimages

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2008, 03:09:09 pm »

Quote
... i.e. new unsupported features will be embedded into the modified .xml.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, that's exactly what I was concerned about. Thanks.

John
Logged

CatOne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 458
    • http://blloyd.smugmug.com
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2008, 05:43:40 pm »

Quote
Yes you are right, but -as you probably know- if you have saved in v.1 to .xml then inadvertedly or on purpose you save again from v.2 then the Beta unsupported warning does make sense,
 i.e. new unsupported features will be embedded into the modified .xml.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Correct.  Things like local corrections, for example.  Of course, there are a couple things to note about this:

1)  The database is king... and in general 1.x should ignore the changes to the XMP files anyway (unless you sync them).  You can just re-save over the XMP files and blow away the 2.x specific metadata.

2)  Lightroom 1.3/1.4 should ignore any information in the XMP metadata that it does not understand... so it should "degrade gracefully" as it's called.  1.3/1.4 are not beta software so this *should* be the case, but LR 2.0 being beta maybe it would write some really wonky un-parse-able crap to the files.  Caveat emptor.

Given the recommendations about LR 2.0 being a beta, I'd say the best course is certainly to work on a separate copy of your images... because even if the XMP thing doesn't cause problems, if there a bug which somehow deleted your entire directory of RAW images... it's not like you weren't warned  
Logged

jwlimages

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 135
LightRoom 2b vs. 1.3.1
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2008, 06:22:18 pm »

Quote
... if there a bug which somehow deleted your entire directory of RAW images...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now there's a thought - and I thought I had paranoid tendencies...
 
 John
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up