Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: nubins on April 02, 2009, 11:39:27 am
-
I have read many of the posts that are similar to this topic of DNG conversion but none of them seem to answer the question if there is any "real" advantage of not converting to DNG.
Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?
I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?
Or should I be saving the NEF and converting to DNG as well and use the NEF in Capture One?
Thanks
-
Does C1 even support DNG?
-
Yes. C1 supports the Leica M8 and that only makes DNGs. Since it supports those DNGs I assume it would work with Adobe converted DNG files as well but I could be wrong.
-
Yes. C1 supports the Leica M8 and that only makes DNGs. Since it supports those DNGs I assume it would work with Adobe converted DNG files as well but I could be wrong.
Afraid not. C1's DNG support is only intended for the specific cameras it supports, and the format it uses to store its own DNGs. Anything else is hit and miss. Mostly miss.
Sandy
-
Thanks for the comments but my main question is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?
-
I have read many of the posts that are similar to this topic of DNG conversion but none of them seem to answer the question if there is any "real" advantage of not converting to DNG.
Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?
I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?
Or should I be saving the NEF and converting to DNG as well and use the NEF in Capture One?
Thanks
Yes - if you use a Phase back you will lose their lens corrections (the 28 mm for example) if you've converted your raw files to DNG. Convert only after initial processing - though I prefer not to.
Bill
-
Thanks for the comments but my main question is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?
For NEF and CR2, no. Same data repackaged is all. Process the NEF in LR or process it's corresponding DNG also in LR and you will get the same result.
Can't speak for other MFDBs but I do know that Hasselblad files exported as DNGs and opened in LR are inferior to those processed in Phocus
-
For NEF and CR2, no. Same data repackaged is all. Process the NEF in LR or process it's corresponding DNG also in LR and you will get the same result.
Can't speak for other MFDBs but I do know that Hasselblad files exported as DNGs and opened in LR are inferior to those processed in Phocus
Your above statement regarding NEF/CR2 vs Hasselblad is true but somewhat misleading since it's an apples to oranges comparison IMO.
If you make the Hasselblad Phocus/LR comparison why not make the Nikon NEF NX/LR comparision then? It is equally valid I believe from the point of view that NX supports corrections based on metadata and exif data (e.g lens used) not available in LR.
BTW Capture One have just introduced their own packaging format (.EIP) which is not unlike DNG and Nikon NEF in the sense that it can store the original raw data + correction instruction metadata and camera/lens metadata.
-
If you make the Hasselblad Phocus/LR comparison why not make the Nikon NEF NX/LR comparision then?
It's quite different since, unless something has changed, you can't process Hasselblad files directly in LR - you have to export to DNG from FlexColour or Phocus and then open the DNG in LR. The results are distinctly inferior since theres a lot of lens correction and other stuff missing. I found the DNG/LR converted images noisier too, compared to Phocus.
NEFs can be opened directly in LR or NX so there is nothing to compare in this case.
Besides, we should not comparing the different processors here, as that would be pointless - my point is only that a NEF converted to DNG and then opened LR can give the same results as opening the same NEF directly in LR. For NEFs and CR2 files there is no quality loss. For Hasselblad files there is a loss but it's really moot since you are introducing another processor into the mix in which case all bets are off.
The OP asked "Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?"
The answer is no - as long as you intend to process the file in LR. Comparing a NEF/DNG processed in LR to a NEF processed in NX is not really meaningful since they will be different, which is better is open to debate.
-
I believe the issue and the OP's question is more subtle than that. I quote from the OP:
'I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?'
I think that the answer should be: If you intend to use a non Adobe converter to process raw files (either exclusively or for selected cases) then, even if that other converter can read and process DNGs created by an Adobe product (not very common), IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA to retain and use the original raw file instead.
The reason for this is in effect the same reason why DNG files from Hasselblad processed in LR can appera inferior from raw files processed in Phocus: Loss of metadata which some (usually camera manufactrurer's own converters) can deploy to 'improve' the quality of the resulting renderings.
-
I tried saving LR adjusted images as DNG. It works fine if you are using LR of Adobe to view the image. All other image editors only see the original raw image, so...
I convert all original NEFs to DNG for archival purposes. These files are not post processed. All files tweaked in CO! or LR are saved as TIFs. This ensures that these files can be read by any image editor. IMO, TIF if the best format because it is universally recognized.
-
I tried saving LR adjusted images as DNG. It works fine if you are using LR of Adobe to view the image. All other image editors only see the original raw image, so...
You need to update the embedded DNG preview, this is one of the advantages of DNG so why not use it. Any app that can see RAW images will display the corrected image.
-
You need to update the embedded DNG preview, this is one of the advantages of DNG so why not use it. Any app that can see RAW images will display the corrected image.
Nick,
What do you mean "update the embedded DNG preview..."? Have you actually processed a CO1 corrected image in the DNG format and been able to see your CO1 adjustments in LR or CS4? I have tried and only see the original raw file, except when saved as a tiff. CO1 does not see LR2 created DNG's.
Maybe I'm missing something. Can I work in DNG and have all image adjustments seen in an app opening the dng file? If so, please tell me what I'm doing wrong.
-
Nick,
What do you mean "update the embedded DNG preview..."? Have you actually processed a CO1 corrected image in the DNG format and been able to see your CO1 adjustments in LR or CS4?
I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".
In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.
Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.
-
I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".
In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.
Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.
That is what I'm thinking also. You have covered the issue with the "rather illusory" phrase.
-
I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".
In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.
Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.
This is very interesting for me. I am considering to use DXO for some of my images and have been pondering on what format to save the results in for further processing in Lightroom and later Photoshop.
If I understand this correctly, there can only be one RAW conversion. Saving from DXO as a DNG will not give me RAW-processing abilities once again apon opening the DXO-converted DNG in Lightroom? It will only give me the ability to work non destructively with Lightrooms tools. Is this correctly understood? If so, I would guess that saving as a TIF from DXO gives me the same options in Lightroom as a DNG?
Reading the following post;
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=234366 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29108&view=findpost&p=234366)
I get the impression that if I use the optical corrections in DXO, and little else, the RAW conversion will be reversed when saving to a DNG, and I will have an optically adjusted RAW file that can be converted i Lightroom if I for some reason wanted to do the actual raw conversion there instead of in DXO. It appears that Lightroom will correctly understand these optical adjustments?
-
One more downside of converting RAWs to DNG format is you cannot use lens correction tools of C1 with (converted) DNGs. C1 renders RAWs waaaay nicer imo then LR (sharper, less plasticy details).
-
If I understand this correctly, there can only be one RAW conversion. Saving from DXO as a DNG will not give me RAW-processing abilities once again apon opening the DXO-converted DNG in Lightroom? It will only give me the ability to work non destructively with Lightrooms tools. Is this correctly understood?
Hold on, this is not so simple.
James' point was All other image editors only see the original raw image, meaning that if you keep the raw data and record the adjusrtments as metadata, different raw processors will not/can not take over the adjustment parameter from each other, with some exceptions.
My understanding is, that the DNG created bx DxO is not the raw data any more. This means, that certain adjustments are now in the image data as opposed to the metadata. In this case the next raw processor has no choice but to take the already adjusted data.
If so, I would guess that saving as a TIF from DXO gives me the same options in Lightroom as a DNG?
I don't know if you can achieve the same degree of "half baked" state. Does DxO offer linear output in TIFF? (For example Canon's DPP does offer this option.) Furthermore, I am sure that the TIFF is always in a target color space, not in the camera's color space. Perhaps already the DNG output of DxO is in the camera's color space.
-
My understanding is, that the DNG created bx DxO is not the raw data any more. This means, that certain adjustments are now in the image data as opposed to the metadata. In this case the next raw processor has no choice but to take the already adjusted data.
DxO creates a "linear" DNG, aka one in which the demosaicing has already been done. In that regard, a DxO DNG is no different to a TIFF. DxO has no ability to correct lens aberrations in raw data.
Sandy
-
I've regretted converting my CR2 files into DNG since I'm now using C1 as my raw converter. C1, while it does work with DNG files, does not treat a CR2 converted DNG the same as a it does a standard CR2. The file appears much flatter and when a specific camera's profile is applied to the DNG, the results lead to too much saturation usually. If Adobe is your main converter there's probably no harm in converting to DNG, but if using C1, I'd say keep the native raw file as is.
-
I've regretted converting my CR2 files into DNG since I'm now using C1 as my raw converter. C1, while it does work with DNG files, does not treat a CR2 converted DNG the same as a it does a standard CR2. The file appears much flatter and when a specific camera's profile is applied to the DNG, the results lead to too much saturation usually. If Adobe is your main converter there's probably no harm in converting to DNG, but if using C1, I'd say keep the native raw file as is.
The problem is that you don't know if Adobe will be your main converter tomorrow.
-
I think it should be fairly obvious to everybody that, whatever one's workflow is, it's not a good idea to throw away the original raw file.
I personally see no good reason in converting to DNG so I don't, but even if I did, I would never get rid of the original.
-
I think it should be fairly obvious to everybody that, whatever one's workflow is, it's not a good idea to throw away the original raw file.
I personally see no good reason in converting to DNG so I don't, but even if I did, I would never get rid of the original.
I'm very much the same opinion NikosR, I also see no advantage for DNG in my workflow, so I make the conversion edits on the original and back it up together with the sidecar.
On top of that I do a monthly back-up to DVD of the original raw and then on a different DVD the same files converted to DNG. Sofar I've never even opened or used the DNG's, it's just in case that in the future I have one more option to try and open a file when the OS of my computer doesn't support the heritage native raw format anymore.
-
I think it should be fairly obvious to everybody that, whatever one's workflow is, it's not a good idea to throw away the original raw file.
I personally see no good reason in converting to DNG so I don't, but even if I did, I would never get rid of the original.
The trouble is, people do think that going DNG means throwing away your original raws. As you say, it's not so. I take the opposite view to you, in that DNG permits a much better multi-application workflow (similar reasons to Nick plus metadata portability) and is a better long term bet than mystery meat raw formats, but I wouldn't dream of chucking away the raw files. You have them, so you may as well keep them as another backup in another format, just in case.
-
is any "real" advantage of not converting to DNG.
I think this is a quite strange way to ask a question. Not doing ANY action in life, has the obvious advantage of not doing it, i.e. saving time, effort, resources,... depending on the subject discussed.
You could ask if the advantages of converting to DNG are worth, and then a lot could be discussed. But to the question if there is some advantage in not converting to DNG, I just have to say the obvious answer: yes, there is the advantage of not doing it.
BR
-
I think this is a quite strange way to ask a question
LOL Guillermo, exactly this was my idea when reading the first post, but then I thought I what the hell... why should not nubins do something simply for the sake of doing it?
-
The question was quite simple I thought. Why should I waste disk space with two versions of essentially the same file if there was no 'real' advantage.
-
Hi,
My take on this is:
DNG: good
anything but DNG: bad
There is no really good argument for raw formats to be around for a long time. We need a raw format to rally around and DNG is IMHO the nearest thing to it. Do you think that Nikon and Canon will support CR2 and NRF in twenty years?
I'm not really in favor of the DNG but I guess that DNG is the closest thing to a documented, multivendor and reasonably open standard we have right now.
Best regards
Erik
The problem is that you don't know if Adobe will be your main converter tomorrow.
-
There is no really good argument for raw formats to be around for a long time
I disagree, but this is not the issue of this thread. The issue is, as a few of us see it, if there is any reason to convert the native raw file in DNG format.
There can be valid reasons:
- if the native format is not supported by your favourite raw processor
- if the native format is uncompressed or very inefficiently compressed (this is not the case with Canons, nor with newer Nikons).
However, the question if Nikon's or Canon's own raw processors will be around in some time is irrelevant here, for you don't want to use that (if you wanted to, then converting toi DNG would not be an option anyway). The question of preservation for the future is rather so:
- will the independent raw processors stop supporting the old native formats?
- if the above is "yes": will the DNG converter stop converting the old native raw formats?
- if the above is "yes": will the old DNG converter stop running due to old age or what?
As long as not all the above conditions are fulfilled, there is no loss with sticking to the native raw format.
-
The question was quite simple I thought. Why should I waste disk space with two versions of essentially the same file if there was no 'real' advantage.
I know the question was simple, and as such it was answered. What I pointed is the question was strange.
And again a simple answer to your new question: Why should I waste disk space with two versions of essentially the same file. Just don't do it, keep only the original RAW file and don't waste your time in converting to DNG.
BR
-
I disagree, but this is not the issue of this thread. The issue is, as a few of us see it, if there is any reason to convert the native raw file in DNG format.
There can be valid reasons:
- if the native format is not supported by your favourite raw processor
- if the native format is uncompressed or very inefficiently compressed (this is not the case with Canons, nor with newer Nikons).
I agree that there is not necessarily any downside to sticking to native RAW and sidecars - in principle. The issue of software becoming incompatible does not worry me - I'm not going to wake up one morning to find that ACR17.2 has expired and 18.0 does not support my original RAWs. It will be an incremental process and one which we will see coming.
For me it's down to these points:
1. Might I need to use DPP or C1 Pro etc to process my files just in case they do a better job on certain images? Maybe.
2. Do I want to have to process out jpegs every time I want a colour accurate web gallery or be stuck with the RAW processor's own web generator (C1Pro 4.7 is woeful in this regard, although it's amazingly fast). No.
3. Do I want to worry about losing sidecar files and thus all adjustments. No.
4. Do I want my DAM application to show me inaccurate thumbs rather than the corrected image. No.
These are the practical issues that affect my workflow and thus I choose to convert to DNG for day to day stuff and archive the original CR2 files onto DVD just in case of 1 above.
I see this as a win-win and see no reason not to convert to DNG, so I can reap it's benefits.
As a practical example, I use Expressions Media as a DAM and a calendar client of mine wants to see a huge selection of images, over 4000. I'm going to send him a xmedia catalog with the free reader app so he can peruse the whole catalog. The thing is, if I had cataloged my CR2 files the thumbnail and preview images he would see would be generated from the in-camera RAW previews and would look quite dull. Using DNGs means that my whole catalog looks as it should, and this translates to good sales. Would you show an uncorrected CR2 file straight out of the camera? I suspect not, and if you catalog CR2s in Portfolio, xMedia etc and show a client a web gallery or a contact sheet then that's what you are doing.
BTW, I'm just looking at C1Pro 4.7. It will open and save DNGs but what a joke - if you save out a RAW as a DNG none of your settings stay with the file, there's no adjusted preview image and if you open a previously saved DNG none of the embedded settings appear! That defeats the whole purpose of DNG so C1Pro are merely paying lip service to the concept. I don't know what happens with out-of-camera DNGs.
-
]Why should I waste disk space with two versions of essentially the same file[/i].
BR
You're not.
If you archive your files, as you should, then you have at least two copies anyway, and DNGs are actually slightly smaller if space is that tight. If you don't have two copies then you are completely mad, so why not have a CR2 and a DNG and so get the best of both worlds?
-
For me it's down to these points:
1. Might I need to use DPP or C1 Pro etc to process my files just in case they do a better job on certain images? Maybe.
2. Do I want to have to process out jpegs every time I want a colour accurate web gallery or be stuck with the RAW processor's own web generator (C1Pro 4.7 is woeful in this regard, although it's amazingly fast). No.
3. Do I want to worry about loosing (?) sidecar files and thus all adjustments. No.
4. Do I want my DAM application to show me inaccurate thumbs rather than the corrected image. No.
Along those lines:
5. Do I want to spend time re-entering metadata because C1 or whatever won't read sidecars: No
-
I've regretted converting my CR2 files into DNG since I'm now using C1 as my raw converter. C1, while it does work with DNG files, does not treat a CR2 converted DNG the same as a it does a standard CR2. The file appears much flatter and when a specific camera's profile is applied to the DNG, the results lead to too much saturation usually. If Adobe is your main converter there's probably no harm in converting to DNG, but if using C1, I'd say keep the native raw file as is.
DNG to me is the equivalent of getting an "Adobe Forever" tattoo. Frankly, I'm still not sure what true advantages there are to it because every pro-level camera RAW file is still supported. I figure that if and when that changes, I'll run the batch file converter when necessary. Meanwhile, I haven't encountered a single situation yet where I needed to convert to a DNG format to get something done.
Until Nikon and Canon convert to DNG in-camera, I have no confidence in the long-term viability of the format. C1, Nikon and Canon all make converters which have inherent advantages over other third-party converters (Adobe, DCRAW basec converters) and they don't support DNG. So, to the OP's question, yes there are huge advantages to keeping the files in native format and only converting that which is necessary without deleting the original source files.
-
I see people listing quite a few advantages for DNG (and I am not referring to theoretical advantages of the like of 'if all 3rd parties agreed on DNG and threw away proprietary formats the world would be a better place') but practical advantages in one's workflow as of TODAY.
I can see their point of view but ONLY if one limits oneself to an Adobe centric workflow. Prime but not the only example: For better or for worse, Nikon NEF's (or Canon raws) can be read and processed by more raw converters than DNGs can. The support for DNG from non-Adobe products is missing altogether or is half-baked and poorly documented in most cases.
People who use DNG at present thinking they are buying some safety for the future should think again. DNG might become (or not) a universal and future proof format someday but IT IS NOT AS OF NOW. I feel that as things stand at present, one exchanges being 'tied' up with a camera manufacturers format with being tied up with Adobe.
There's no lack of support for the manufacturer's raws and, in case you are a Nikon NEF user you can do many things with NEFs (and Nikon's converter) that most people think you can only do with DNGs (like storing both the raw file and the edit metadata in a NEF) plus a few things that I think you can't do with a DNG (like storing different metadata based edit versions in a NEF).
So, for the time being, I see no advantage in my workflow in converting to DNGs so I don't. The Adobe products work happily with my NEF's and I can use either those or a multitude of other products to convert and manage my files. Lots of non-Adobe DAM and file browser programs (like Photo Mechanic which I use) can read and display the NEF embedded jpg (which gets updated if one uses NEF to save ones edits) so I'm a happy camper.
Your mileage can vary.
-
So, for the time being, I see no advantage in my workflow in converting to DNGs so I don't. The Adobe products work happily with my NEF's and I can use either those or a multitude of other products to convert and manage my files. Lots of non-Adobe DAM and file browser programs (like Photo Mechanic which I use) can read and display the NEF embedded jpg (which gets updated if one uses NEF to save ones edits) so I'm a happy camper.
Your mileage can vary.
All this is true, and I must admit I didn't know that NX2 adds a proper embedded preview reflecting edits to the NEF. Good one Nikon. However, this commits you to a NX-centric RAW workflow in that only NX2 can see the edit history and if you opened it in LR or something you are back to the beginning again. NEF for Nikon - DNG for Adobe. Same pros and cons for both really. At least DNG is fully documented.
-
However, this commits you to a NX-centric RAW workflow in that only NX2 can see the edit history and if you opened it in LR or something you are back to the beginning again
Nick, Do you mind listing those raw converters, which mutually recognize their adjustments?
-
Nick, Do you mind listing those raw converters, which mutually recognize their adjustments?
Um, not sure what you mean, AFAIK there are none that do this. DPP and NX only work with their own adjustments, although at least NX embeds this info plus metadata and a preview in a single file. DNG effectively only works with ACR - C1 Pro will 'see' the DNGs but cannot read any embedded adjustments.
So you have to commit to one software path no matter what you choose. As a Canon user I choose Adobe, but if I was with Nikon I might very well stick with NX.
-
Um, not sure what you mean
You listed this commits you to a NX-centric RAW workflow as a disadvantage of working with NX2. However, this is true regarding all raw converters, AFAIK. Thus this aspect is not a consideration.
-
You listed this commits you to a NX-centric RAW workflow as a disadvantage of working with NX2. However, this is true regarding all raw converters, AFAIK. Thus this aspect is not a consideration.
I was responding to NikosR's post. I did not say it was a disadvantage, merely that it was the same limitation as the DNG limitations pointed out by others.
As you say, it's not a consideration in this respect - but you still have to commit to a manufacturer specific workflow whether you use a camera manufacturer format or Adobe's format. It's this aspect that has people concerned.
-
you still have to commit to a manufacturer specific workflow whether you use a camera manufacturer format or Adobe's format. It's this aspect that has people concerned.
This "manufacturer specific workflow" is in truth not a big issue if one is not using LR or Bridge (like I don't). The integration of ACR in Photoshop is miserable; the raw image handling for example in DPP is superior to ACR, and it passes the result to Photoshop if you want it to. I am using ACR because of the better adjustments, but the plugin architecture is a serious impediment.
-
This "manufacturer specific workflow" is in truth not a big issue if one is not using LR or Bridge (like I don't). The integration of ACR in Photoshop is miserable; the raw image handling for example in DPP is superior to ACR, and it passes the result to Photoshop if you want it to. I am using ACR because of the better adjustments, but the plugin architecture is a serious impediment.
It seems one has to choose the 'least bad' option!
"The integration of ACR in Photoshop is miserable" - in what way? It works fine for me, and quite easily.
-
"The integration of ACR in Photoshop is miserable" - in what way? It works fine for me, and quite easily.
I am sure you know this but simply accepted it as "God given".
ACR is a plugin of Photoshop, with all the restrictions.
- Do you never want to take a look at another image while you are editing in ACR? You can not switch over to PS.
- You can not add or remove a file from those initially opened by ACR.
- You can not process files from several directories together.
- You can not accept the adjustments of some files (i.e. storing the adjustments) but keep some others unchanged.
Unfortunately, the restriction of processing files only from a single directory applies to DPP as well.
-
I am sure you know this but simply accepted it as "God given".
ACR is a plugin of Photoshop, with all the restrictions.
- Do you never want to take a look at another image while you are editing in ACR? You can not switch over to PS.
- You can not add or remove a file from those initially opened by ACR.
- You can not process files from several directories together.
- You can not accept the adjustments of some files (i.e. storing the adjustments) but keep some others unchanged.
Unfortunately, the restriction of processing files only from a single directory applies to DPP as well.
1. True, but I use a browser on another computer or monitor to see images.
2. True but it never worried me. ACR only processes the ones that are selected in the ACR thumbs list anyway and ignores the rest. Adding more is OK because you can open more files even after you have started ACR processing and add more to the queue. It's still a bit cludgy in this respect admittedly.
3. Yes you can. Open (or drag and drop) a non-contiguous selection of files from Photo Mechanic or Expressions Media and they all open into ACR just fine.
4. Yes you can. Open the files, adjust the ones you want to and click 'done'. Only the ones you have adjusted will have their adjustments saved. You can use the reset button to revert to where files were when you opened them so that's much the same thing as canceling or not accepting specific image edits.
Not so bad after all!