Recover LR changes from another converter

[lluis]

Hi,

I'm using LR as a RAW converter for some years now. I always have wondered if someday I decide to switch to another converter I'll be able to use the settings on my pictures made under LR, or I'll have to process again ALL my pictures again. Are the changes made on a given converter saved in the RAW file?
Thanks in advance.

Lluís

[NikoJorj]

Yes they're saved besides the raw file if you choose so (check the preferences' tickbox "save metadata in XMP sidecars" or save metadata with ctrl-S)...
But for now, I don't know of any non-Adobe raw converter that can effectively use development parameters made by Adobe (or by any other raw converter, but I'd like to stand corrected).

[lluis]

Yes they're saved besides the raw file if you choose so (check the preferences' tickbox "save metadata in XMP sidecars" or save metadata with ctrl-S)...
But for now, I don't know of any non-Adobe raw converter that can effectively use development parameters made by Adobe (or by any other raw converter, but I'd like to stand corrected).

So, in practice, I understand it's not possible to share parameters between two different converters. And also, someway one is attached to a given program.

[John R Smith]

Which is a very good reason to save all your finished work as 16-bit TIFFs.

[lluis]

Which is a very good reason to save all your finished work as 16-bit TIFFs.

Yes, but it means a huge amount of hard disk space used instead of saving just RAW+parameters...

[John R Smith]

Indeed. Especially if you shoot MF like me and your colour 16-bit TIFFs are 230MB each. But I don't really see any way around it, if you really want to future-proof your archive against changes of software, RAW formats, and the like. At least there is some hope that you will be able to read a TIFF up again ten or twenty years down the line. Who knows if you will be able to say the same about a NEF, 3FR or whatever?

Personally, I don't even have that much hope for TIFFs. I would reckon that in the long-term, probably the only thing which might survive would be my prints.

John

[NikoJorj]

if you really want to future-proof your archive against changes of software, RAW formats, and the like.
[...]
I would reckon that in the long-term, probably the only thing which might survive would be my prints.

Other option : keep the necessary binaries of your software in the archive. Any problem won't arise before some major and probably far future OS evolution, downward compatibility being generally the rule. Costs less space.

For the print being the ultimate archive, it sure is for spectators, who probably won't give a f about trying to open those curious files without exactly knowing what it's all about. The print will show them much better what it's about (even if it has faded a bit).
For you, it's another matter : the files guarantee you you can re-work on your images. For that, the raw is optimal.

[John R Smith]

Sorry, folks. When I said that you should archive your finished prints as 16-bit TIFFS I did not mean to imply that you should just dump the RAW files. Of course not, they should always be archived as well. But for someone else coming to your work some years down the line, after you yourself are dead and gone, we can only assume that a TIFF might be what they need and can read up. We take hundreds of aerial photographs every year here at work which have to be archived as part of the historic record for Cornwall. They are processed from RAW, but are stored on the archival servers as TIFFs.

John

[lluis]

Indeed. Especially if you shoot MF like me and your colour 16-bit TIFFs are 230MB each. But I don't really see any way around it, if you really want to future-proof your archive against changes of software, RAW formats, and the like. At least there is some hope that you will be able to read a TIFF up again ten or twenty years down the line. Who knows if you will be able to say the same about a NEF, 3FR or whatever?

Personally, I don't even have that much hope for TIFFs. I would reckon that in the long-term, probably the only thing which might survive would be my prints.

John

I've thought the same, many times. Prints will always be prints.