Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: Bob Rockefeller on February 02, 2016, 05:49:01 pm
-
Quote from: Bob Rockefeller on Today at 04:29:53 PM
How does it help you?
What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
Quote
Yes, in general
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
Report to moderator Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Continued here.
My own experiences with DNGs are limited because I quit using them some time ago. Aperture has the ability to show the focus points of a camera and to highlight the one used at the time of image capture. NEF files converted to DNG no longer allowed that.
Now I find that Capture One doesn't like DNGs and can slow down if the original RAW is not embedded.
Jeff Schewe no longer recommends the use of DNG.
So I choose not to use DNG as I don't see what it offers me.
Others may find the format quite valuable, and that's fine.
-
Not sure what this thread is about ... but...:
An "Original" is an "Original". An "Original" converted to something else (say ARW to DNG) is no longer the "original" file ... above all when lots of data gets stripped.
So, in short: keep (and work with) the actual "Original" file as long as possible and only choose to convert to DNG when you have to expand compatibility to work with certain softwares for certain purposes.
"Compatibility" is the key here... IMHO. But as long as your proprietary original RAW-files are natively supported in a given software... why on earth would you ever convert your original files to a different file format?
The "secret sauce" in RAW files the manufacturers sofwares can utilze are there for a reason. Why throw away the potential of benefitting from these data (that are NOT supported by DNG)?
For me personally DNG is totally irrelevant...
-
Not sure what this thread is about ... but...
There seems to be an agenda.
That said, there's nothing in your post that one can argue about.
That said, Bob wants us to believe he's found some issue with C1 and it's ability to work with DNG's a format he tells us he doesn't use. It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both. That including the original raw in the DNG, making the file much larger speeds up the process, that as yet, I don't know anyone who's reported this behavior with other raw converters, considering the C1 'support' or lack therefore in the past, I can make an uneducated guess which is which. But I prefer facts to guesses so it certainly is possible this is DNG alone.
-
There seems to be an agenda.
That said, there's nothing in your post that one can argue about.
That said, Bob wants us to believe he's found some issue with C1 and it's ability to work with DNG's a format he tells us he doesn't use. It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both. That including the original raw in the DNG, making the file much larger speeds up the process, that as yet, I don't know anyone who's reported this behavior with other raw converters, considering the C1 'support' or lack therefore in the past, I can make an uneducated guess which is which. But I prefer facts to guesses so it certainly is possible this is DNG alone.
Never mind.
I've had problems with DNGs in Aperture and Capture One. That's it.
-
I've had problems with DNGs in Aperture and Capture One. That's it.
Not following the spec's or creating bugs can do that Bob.
-
From my point of view using a DNG centric workflow only makes sense if you wish to confine yourself to the use of Adobe products for processing of your raw files.
I use Lightroom as my main application for rendering and management of my raw files. Since Lightroom stores all the work I do with my files in the Catalog file I have no need for .xmp sidecars nor DNG. If I were to use the Photoshop / Bridge/ Adobe Camera Raw option then I might consider using the DNG option.
I also wish to maintain the option of using software that does not support DNG including the software available from my camera manufacturer.
Capture One and Qimage Ultimate are the other applications I also use with my raw files but do not perceive any benefit from adopting a DNG workflow with either application.
-
Not following the spec's or creating bugs can do that Bob.
Yep.
So why is the DNG format valuable to you?
-
So why is the DNG format valuable to you?
Check the other topic you decided for whatever reason to start.
-
It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both.
that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support. As far as I am concerned there's nothing wrong with that. C1 is a RAW-Processor. They can add catalogues, TIF and JPEG editing support and a rudimentary DNG support and you name it. But C1 is really weak in all these aspects. It does shine, though, in developping native RAW files. No other RAW converter extracts so fine, artefact-free and "analogue"-looking details from RAW-files (not even Iridient-Developer... though it comes pretty close). Depends on the camera... but mostly C1 is superior to other RAW-processors...
-
Quote "It does shine, though, in developping native RAW files. No other RAW converter extracts so fine, artefact-free and "analogue"-looking details from RAW-files (not even Iridient-Developer... though it comes pretty close). Depends on the camera... but mostly C1 is superior to other RAW-processors..."
Exactly isn't this what you are ultimately expecting to achieve fro processing your raw files.
-
that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support.
Seems that way but I'd prefer to be neutral* until it is tested and verified. Perhaps by trying the same DNG in differing products.
* I was just called an shameless Adobe Shill so it would be useful to such stupid posters among others to know I do fully believe in the idea of trust but verify.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107758.msg888192#msg888192 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107758.msg888192#msg888192)
-
This seems to be a topic that is often very polarizing.
I, for one, am thoroughly for DNG. One of the biggest advantages is the image data hash - easily and quickly checked in LR, and I think there might be a stand-alone application too based on a quick Gooch (Google Search :) ) I did a while back. The other more minor one for me is a belt-and-suspenders backup of develop settings inside the file itself.
I may be one of the few that even throws away the originals (albeit having 2 Pentax cams that are DNG-native anyways) as I couldn't care less of using various manufacturer's software. I'd rather concentrate of the software that does many. And as far as I'm concerned, if a software doesn't support DNG, it's a software that is out of date. As far as trying to match the SOOC jpg goes - it is now a pointless endeavor, as I can now either closely match or do much better with LR - and, yes, even C1.
However there are as many different workflows as there are opinions about DNG, so whatever works for people...
-
that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support.
Hi,
That's not true (and has been rehashed earlier (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103941.msg871300#msg871300) ), and although it's not their top priority, they are working on improved DNG support (recently added more support for the latest DNG 1.4 specs, and better color model conversions if the Raw file is embedded in the DNG, and a comment by Phase One's Lionel Kuhlmann that support will be improved (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102186.msg841495#msg841495)).
The issue is that a DNG filewrapper adds nothing positive to a Capture One Raw conversion, only adds more things that can go wrong in the conversion between color models and creates a need for more provisions and validity checks (while the quality of the conversion is not better). There is a quick and dirty way of converting DNGs, and that is to only extract the Raw data block and ignore most of the DNG meta data, but that's not a proper conversion (and I would not call that real support either), although some other converters do it that way.
So a lot of work for no quality gain. I can understand the lower priority, although it would be nice if DNG files were better supported, for sure. DNG as such is mostly beneficial to an Adobe centric workflow but offers no benefits to Phase One, only more work for validation of input data which can change if Adobe changes the DNG specs again, while a perfectly sound conversion from the camera originals is already implemented in the C1 Raw converter. So again, a lot of work for no gain only to help a competitor gain acceptance of their file format.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The issue is that a DNG filewrapper adds nothing positive to a Capture One Raw conversion, only adds more things that can go wrong in the conversion between color models and creates a need for more provisions and validity checks (while the quality of the conversion is not better).
In my view, Phase One has a little too great a focus on Capture One Pro as a RAW converter, and a RAW converter foremost. I understand it from a marketing perspective - this is the niche they want to dominate. Their RAW conversions, and adjustments, are arguably the best in the business.
But some users of Capture One Pro want more than the bare bones RAW converter Capture One Pro once was. They see it as time for it to expand into the DAM that Lightroom is and Aperture was. And it is moving that way - a catalog, keywords, metadata presets, and the like, are being added.
But they've been slow in coming and buggy in implementation. And, as a DAM, CO needs to be more accepting of file formats other than plain manufacturer's RAW files. DNGs, PSDs, TIFFs (all flavors), and so on, are first-class image citizens for many.
I wish Phase One luck with this because I, for one, would love to move from Lightroom to it. But the missing, or poorly implemented, DAM features trip me up each time I give it a serious try. :(
-
This seems to be a topic that is often very polarizing.
Not really, there are just a lot of misguided expectations, like that DNG offers anything positive to Capture One conversions. If I had to prioritize the resource allocation for Phase One, I might have given DNG the same priority. So far I'm very pleased with the recent quality improvements in Capture One, and since I use the original Camera's Raws, I get full benefit (even lens corrections, helped by improved scaling quality in Version 9). I'm glad that the research and development was spent with more priority on improving conversion quality of my original camera files.
I, for one, am thoroughly for DNG. One of the biggest advantages is the image data hash - easily and quickly checked in LR, and I think there might be a stand-alone application too based on a quick Gooch (Google Search :) ) I did a while back. The other more minor one for me is a belt-and-suspenders backup of develop settings inside the file itself.
We've been over this already in other threads. The fact that Adobe applications rewrite the DNG files makes it a necessity to do image data corruption checks. As long as the original Raw data is not rewritten, nothing can change, so there is no need to verify (Raw file integrity can be periodically checked when backing up and when disk storage maintenance is run). The addition of development settings inside the file itself only adds to the slower backup volume of files. With each small edit of a parameter, the entire file needs to be backed up again, and the same goes for multiple people working on the same file, they need to refresh the entire file instead of just some XML data which can make a big difference on large files and remote access.
But you are right, some people prefer to put all their eggs in one basket/file, and increase the risk of losing it all rather than reduce the risk of irreparable corruption.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not really, there are just a lot of misguided expectations, like that DNG offers anything positive to Capture One conversions.
I don't think that's the point for most people.
Many folks, myself included, have DNGs in our libraries that we would like to migrate to Capture One. And TIFFs. And PSDs. And many folks, again, myself included, have catalogs going back years - we want to continue using catalogs and if we're going to use Capture One for past work, and gain it's improved RAW conversions, we need to migrate all the files.
DNG is not an important format, to me, per se; I no longer use it. But the point is, I once did and many still do. We'd like Capture One to be an option for us.
-
I don't think that's the point for most people.
Many folks, myself included, have DNGs in our libraries that we would like to migrate to Capture One. And TIFFs. And PSDs. And many folks, again, myself included, have catalogs going back years - we want to continue using catalogs and if we're going to use Capture One for past work, and gain it's improved RAW conversions, we need to migrate all the files.
DNG is not an important format, to me, per se; I no longer use it. But the point is, I once did and many still do. We'd like Capture One to be an option for us.
Hi Bob,
I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on. They are not as wealthy as e.g. Adobe, but do create good stuff. Perfect, no, but improving all the time.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on.
Yes. And for me, they haven't chosen a direction that I can get on board with. I want/need/expect a DAM, together with output tools and solid RAW conversion. Today, on balance, that's Lightroom. Horses for courses...
-
I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on.
I don't understand the idea of not fully supporting a format as specified and supported by others (competitors). I have zero issues with C1 not supporting DNG at all. As a potential future customer, I have a big issue with any format not being correctly or fully supported; DNG or otherwise. And what makes you think this is 'big engineering'?
The one man band who writes Iridient Developer, a superb raw processor, doesn't have this issue. Why should a 'slightly' larger company be any different?
-
I have zero issues with C1 not supporting DNG at all.
Here's where I agree. By saying that CO supports DNG, Phase One implies that it supports all/most DNGs. But not really. In fact technical support has told me that DNG files without the original RAW embedded in it, can cause CO to hang up and even crash. None of my DNGs have the RAWs embedded.
And in partially supporting TIFFs, one might be lead to think CO will support your TIFFs. But maybe not.
I suppose the trial period lets a perspective user find this stuff out - as long as they don't concentrate on the RAW conversion (which is wonderful) and not fully exercise the DAM.
If they're going to support a format, I can understand that there might be edge cases and bugs. But CO leaves out whole, common, classes of format support. Layered TIFFs? No. DNG without an embedded RAW? No.
-
I don't understand the idea of not fully supporting a format as specified and supported by others (competitors). I have zero issues with C1 not supporting DNG at all. As a potential future customer, I have a big issue with any format not being correctly or fully supported; DNG or otherwise. And what makes you think this is 'big engineering'?
The one man band who writes Iridient Developer, a superb raw processor, doesn't have this issue. Why should a 'slightly' larger company be any different?
Hi Andrew,
With all due respect, you are obviously not a programmer (software engineer). I am a parttime programmer, but not by profession. In simple terms, what others who offer DNG 'compatibility' might do, is extract the data section (raw undemosaiced Bayerized pixels) from the DNG and ignore the rest, some just use DCRaw or the LibRAW libraries to also do demosaicing anf the standard color tables, other cook their own recipe, and either go postprocessing with standard color table matrix conversions for color in Linear gama space or not.
That is not the internal Capture One workflow. Capture One has its own conversions (which according to many leads to superior results) based on ICC input source profiles, not output referred DNG and ProPhotoRGB (partly linear gamma version) workingspace like Adobe does. Apparently they tried to follow the DNG specification (by using the SDK) but ran into inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and or other issues, so they cannot simply shoehorn the DNG output into their own processing pipeline without additional conversions. DNG data is also not always Raw, it can also be demosaiced RGB per pixel, so lots of things need to be verified/converted back if even possible.
As has been explained in earlier threads on this same topic, but not understood by most, Capture One uses its own different color models to connect the scene referred ICC input profiled Bayerized data with the output profile, and does most processing in a sort of camera space that is large enough to avoid gamut clipping from the image processing. This also allows to modify (http://blog.phaseone.com/tweak-the-default-color-look-of-your-camera/) the ICC input profile and save a modified ICC profile version for future use or as a new default for a camera.
This means that a whole lot of data from the DNG needs to be verified and converted to make that possible. And since a DNG can be created outside of a camera, a lot can be wrong that needs verification before it is used. Its usually not wrong, but it still needs to be verified to make sure. Apparently, as Anders Torger discovered, not all metadata fields are unambiguously described in the specification, so there is more room for (wrong) interpretation than a truly open specification should provide.
This all takes a lot of software engineering to cover, debug, maintain (Adobe has changed parts of the specification several times, we're currently at the fifth major version 1.4), and verify. And all this while there is already a perfectly usable and high quality conversion from original Camera Raw implemented. It's all extra work to achieve nothing better than is already there. Capture One chose to first spend their money on improving the Raw conversion engine (improved with version 7, and again with version 9), while Adobe is still using their 2012 engine, so they apparently are focusing on other things.
As said, small one-man band application writers may cut some corners (like only using the Raw Bayerized data or DCRaw output, and ignore the rest of the DNG file) as explained above, and that may also work to a point (although rarely as good as what Capture One produces). It seems like Phase One got trapped when trying to use the DNG SDK but ran into conversion issues. Maybe they should have ignored the DNG data with the exception of the Raw Bayerized data like others, but we'll see what the future holds. Maybe they'll figure out a way to get better quality out of a DNG than Adobe ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Andrew,
With all due respect, you are obviously not a programmer (software engineer).
No, but I'm in the software business (Pixel Genius) and pay for engineering! So I have a very good idea what it can cost me and my partners to request anything from engineering.
In simple terms, what others who offer DNG 'compatibility' might do, is extract the data section (raw undemosaiced Bayerized pixels) from the DNG and ignore the rest, some just use DCRaw or the LibRAW libraries to also do demosaicing anf the standard color tables, other cook their own recipe, and either go postprocessing with standard color table matrix conversions for color in Linear gama space or not.
None of that changes the basic fact that a tiny company, among others, can support a format properly, fully. while another can't or doesn't. The solution is simple; stop "supporting", poorly, file formats. Or do it correctly. It's as simple as that!
If the C1 gang had a clue, they would see how many Adobe customers are looking to jump ship. They could and should address their needs to get them into their customer base. Affinty (Affinty Photo) is doing this! It's a smart move, got my money as a 'backup' plan should I ever bail on Photoshop.
That is not the internal Capture One workflow.
Then they should not support the format at all (and they should not be dictating workflow to me, that's another topic).
Capture One has its own conversions (which according to many leads to superior results) based on ICC input source profiles, not output referred DNG and ProPhotoRGB (partly linear gamma version) workingspace like Adobe does. Apparently they tried to follow the DNG specification (by using the SDK) but ran into inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and or other issues, so they cannot simply shoehorn the DNG output into their own processing pipeline without additional conversions. DNG data is also not always Raw, it can also be demosaiced RGB per pixel, so lots of things need to be verified/converted back if even possible.
Which has zero to do with supporting the file format correctly. IF their ICC approach is better, great (prove it), but what does that have to be with the raw data and it's file format container? Lightroom/ACR doesn't support DNG camera profiles on rendered images, it does support ICC profiles. So what?
Here are the facts: there are companies bigger and smaller than Phase that properly support DNG. Phase has made a conscious and I think stupid business decision to play favorites with file formats. Now if that's what they want to do, they will lose potential customers; I'm one! And I'm not alone here. Again, they can remove all DNG support which is fine with me. What they shouldn’t do is do a half baked effort which is what they are doing. There's zero excuse for that!
-
That is not the internal Capture One workflow.
you don't need to follow DNG model of raw conversion (including using dcp profiles and how/when they are applied) to use the data in DNG container just like you use the date from "non DNG" raw files... and as for DNG for example C1 does support Ricoh cameras which are DNG only w/o any issues.
-
No, but I'm in the software business (Pixel Genius) and pay for engineering! So I have a very good idea what it can cost me and my partners to request anything from engineering.
So have you (paid) for implementing DNG conversions, or do you piggy back on the Adobe flavor of conversions? Quite a difference I can tell you.
None of that changes the basic fact that a tiny company, among others, can support a format properly, fully. while another can't or doesn't.
Define 'support fully'. Is that 'ignore almost everything in the DNG except for the Raw Bayerized data', or convert using the SDK and use its (Adobe flavored) output?
Phase has made a conscious and I think stupid business decision to play favorites with file formats.
Fact? Or assumption based on you observation from a distance?
' The solution is simple; stop "supporting", poorly, file formats. Or do it correctly.
Maybe they will, maybe they will do better than that, Who knows?
It's as simple as that! If the C1 gang had a clue, they would see how many Adobe customers are looking to jump ship.
Why, aren't they happy? Most people I hear about it seem quite happy with e.g. Lightroom (great DAM features, some are even happy with the conversion quality, good enough for the intended use).
They could and should address their needs to get them into their customer base. Affinty (Affinty Photo) is doing this! It's a smart move, got my money as a 'backup' plan should I ever bail on Photoshop. Then they should not support the format at all (and they should not be dictating workflow to me, that's another topic).
What do you mean, by 'dictating the workflow''? Don't all applications have their own workflow?
IF their ICC approach is better, great (prove it), but what does that have to be with the raw data and it's file format container?
It has to do with getting the required data out of that container, not Adobe precooked, because that then takes an almost impossible job to convert back to the required really Raw input (if at all possible).
Here are the facts: there are companies bigger and smaller than Phase that properly support DNG.
Again, specify 'support', ignore or use the SDK precooked data and build on that? With programming, details matter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
you don't need to follow DNG model of raw conversion (including using dcp profiles and how/when they are applied) to use the data in DNG container just like you use the date from "non DNG" raw files...
I agree, but apparently (it seems to me anyway that) Phase One took an early decision to follow the SDK, but found out that the back conversion is an almost impossible exercise.
... and as for DNG for example C1 does support Ricoh cameras which are DNG only w/o any issues.
Well, we don't really know, because we can't compare the output with the non-DNG camera Raw, or can we? If we can, we could see which produces better results. I can use the DNG converter to produce a DNG version of my camera original Raw, and see that the difference in comparison may sometimes differ significantly.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So have you (paid) for implementing DNG conversions, or do you piggy back on the Adobe flavor of conversions? Quite a difference I can tell you.
You can? How so?
Define 'support fully'
Well for one, not having to embed a raw into the container so the app doesn't crash! Or the need to embed more data to speed it up (silly).
Why, aren't they happy? Most people I hear about it seem quite happy with e.g. Lightroom (great DAM features, some are even happy with the conversion quality, good enough for the intended use).
Very happy, today. I'm always interested in a backup plan, don't care to paint myself into a workflow corner. But then I have at least two non Adobe raw converters that support DNG as I desire (they certainly don't crash or require I embed the raw). C1 might have been on the list, it's not.
What do you mean, by 'dictating the workflow''? Don't all applications have their own workflow?
What do you mean by it (you raised the issue)? Workflows that demand I embed the proprietary raw without crashing isn't a workflow I'll consider.
-
I agree, but apparently (it seems to me anyway that) Phase One took an early decision to follow the SDK, but found out that the back conversion is an almost impossible exercise.
Clearly for them, the crux of some of our disappointment in the company. Doesn't matter. There ARE companies that don't find it an impossible exercise.
-
Well, we don't really know, because we can't compare the output with the non-DNG camera Raw, or can we?
we can compare how C1 works with Ricoh in camera DNG vs DNG converted from some other raw files...
-
Clearly for them
however C1 developers did improve how it is working with DNG recently...
-
however C1 developers did improve how it is working with DNG recently...
That's good news. Maybe the pressure is working ;D
Got nothing against the company per se, other than this DNG issue. I'm on the sidelines, looking at possible other raw solutions. As I may have stated here, I've used software from this fine company dating back to their scanning back, 1998 or so*. If indeed they improve and fix the issue reported (crashing or faster access without having to embed the original raw), I applaud the effort.
* http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107870.msg888172#msg888172 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107870.msg888172#msg888172)
-
we can compare how C1 works with Ricoh in camera DNG vs DNG converted from some other raw files...
As one whose DSLR's are Ricoh-Pentax, the K-3/II is selectable between PEF or DNG. I believe all their flagships are selectable that way. More prosumer types like the K-30 are DNG-only.
...... (replying to an earlier post) .....
As per the option to write into the DNG, alone, necessitating the image-data verification hash.. Once created, a DNG never has to be written into ever again - and in fact is the default for LR. Only if one chooses to do so does it ever have to be written into again. I don't understand the failure by various C1 evangelists to realize this.
Besides, the backup issue is a red herring. Everyone has their own preferences for backup strategies.
-
As one whose DSLR's are Ricoh-Pentax
a note = I was talking about genuine Ricoh-Ricoh cameras... not about Pentax brand.
-
and in fact is the default for LR.
that was not always the case ;D ... there was a time when DNG were written into w/o a warning... a thing that DNG proponents prefer not to remember, just like other things like dropping data read off sensor written to raw by camera during raw to DNG conversion, etc, etc... Adobe silently fixed a lot of bugs during those years, but so much for calls to use DNG as an archival format for non DNG raw files ;D ...
-
that was not always the case ;D ... there was a time when DNG were written into w/o a warning...
DNG's were written to in Lightroom automatically at some point in it's lifetime? What version was that?
-
DNG's were written to in Lightroom automatically at some point in it's lifetime? What version was that?
that was probably couple of years ago... for example embedded (in DNG) JPG thumbnail was overwritten (Adobe fixed the issue since then).
-
that was probably couple of years ago... for example embedded (in DNG) JPG thumbnail was overwritten (Adobe fixed the issue since then).
What version? I don't recall that behavior. AFAIK, to write back to the DNG, you have to (have always had to?) invoke that command (on Mac, Command S) or to write XMP to DNG or TIFF/PSD, have the Auto Save XMP on.
From LR FAQ:
UPDATE DNG PREVIEW & METADATA
When you’re manually writing metadata to DNG files, you’ll note that the Metadata menu offers two options:
• Save Metadata to File just updates the XMP metadata, as it would with any other kind of file.
• Update DNG Preview & Metadata does the same, but it also updates the embedded preview any DNG files to include your Develop edits.
-
Recent piece from Martin Evening:
DNG Pros, Cons and Myths
http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2015/12/dng-pros-cons-and-myths.html
-
What version? I don't recall that behavior. AFAIK, to write back to the DNG, you have to (have always had to?) invoke that command (on Mac, Command S) or to write XMP to DNG or TIFF/PSD, have the Auto Save XMP on.
Or when using the recommended Fast Load Data option (see attachment). I know it's an option, but who wants a slower performance when loading files ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just a comment on the subject "To DNG or not to DNG" ????. This is subject that has been in contention and ongoing for over 10 years since Adobe has been lobbying for the format to be adopted as a universal standard, without success.
Most of the major digital camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, have not indicated the slightest interest in adopting the format.
It is of interest that Adobe who is not involved in the actual manufacture or sale of digital cameras is the one who is trying direct and influence the actual players in the market.
I am pretty sure Adobe is convinced that the format is beneficial to them and the users of their products, somehow they have not been able to convince some of the major players in the market.
-
that was not always the case ;D ... there was a time when DNG were written into w/o a warning... a thing that DNG proponents prefer not to remember, just like other things like dropping data read off sensor written to raw by camera during raw to DNG conversion, etc, etc... Adobe silently fixed a lot of bugs during those years, but so much for calls to use DNG as an archival format for non DNG raw files ;D ...
I started with LR4, and I somewhat recall something about that.. So it might have been around LR3. Possibly 4, but I just can't remember.
Either way it aught not auto-write to it, so it's a good thing that the default got changed.
Regarding the Pentax mention, I meant to elaborate.. That if anyone with better cognitive ability wanted me to take pictures with my K-3 of some sort of test scene, recorded as both native-PEF and native-DNG, and send them, I'd be willing to do so. (Secondary conversions to DNG could be done by the recipient.)
-
Just a comment on the subject "To DNG or not to DNG" ????. This is subject that has been in contention and ongoing for over 10 years since Adobe has been lobbying for the format to be adopted as a universal standard, without success.
Yeah.. I've been wondering about this for a long time now. What the hell is taking so damn long?
Is it being held up at the intake of the ISO, or is it currently being discussed by the ISO, or what?
It's taking so fricken long I just gotta say WTF! WTF!!
Either way, I'm still going to be using it, but still... This is ri-fricken-diculous.
-
Yeah.. I've been wondering about this for a long time now. What the hell is taking so damn long?
Is it being held up at the intake of the ISO, or is it currently being discussed by the ISO, or what?
It's taking so fricken long I just gotta say WTF! WTF!!
Either way, I'm still going to be using it, but still... This is ri-fricken-diculous.
In my opinion it being hampered because the Camera Manufacturers are not on board.
-
I started with LR4, and I somewhat recall something about that.. So it might have been around LR3. Possibly 4, but I just can't remember.
No. There has never been any time when Lightroom wrote to DNGs without warning. It has always been by the user enabling the auto preference or by manually invoking one of the two metadata settings. No bugs, no change of default behaviour.
-
Agreed it was Adobe CameraRaw that wrote to the file or sidecar when working with the raw files.
The ACR process was referred to as "the info is in the file" and the Lightroom process "the info is in the Catalog".
-
Is it being held up at the intake of the ISO, or is it currently being discussed by the ISO, or what?
Yes and yes is my understanding. That process can take place at glacial speeds. Best hear back from Schewe about the particulars.
-
No. There has never been any time when Lightroom wrote to DNGs without warning. It has always been by the user enabling the auto preference or by manually invoking one of the two metadata settings. No bugs, no change of default behaviour.
Thanks! That kind of was my memory of how it worked too. Doesn't make any sense that Adobe would force this upon users for obvious reasons.