zigipha Loc: north nj

I looked around the web and here to find the answer but have come up short.

My understanding is that raw edits (i.e. the adjustments made) are always stored in the LR catalog. Optionally, some of this info (not all) can be stored in the .xmp file.

The upside to this is that if you want to copy files from computer to computer or catalog or catalog (no flaming on "this isnt the right way to do so"), then you have most of your edits also w/o having to access the source catalog.

The operational downside is that it slows down LR to create the file and update as you do your edits; and they take up some disk space

Are there any OTHER downsides? One have I have seen is that one may have a false sense of security that all edits are in the XMP (I can live with that). The other is that the xmp can get corrupted; so what? If the data is in the catalog I can pull from there.

Is that about it?

thanks

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

FYIW - yes, the raw edits are stored in the LR catalog, but can be optionally stored in an XMP "sidecar file" with a setting so that all edits are written to the sidecar right away. (My lightroom preferences have this option turned on)

The upside and downside depend on your viewpoint, for me, the downside of sidecar files was the additional file per raw file, so my workflow now is as follows:

Import raw files (NEF)
Use Lightroom to select/unselect "keepers"
Delete from disk all unselected (non-keepers)
Convert all raw files to DNG files with Lightroom
Edit all converted files
export finished edits to JPG as needed.

This means that my dng file contains not only the raw image data but the final edits as well, regardless of where that file resides - no sidecars to corrupt or lose - regenerating a JPG or TIF is easy from the dng.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I'm thinking of adopting your approach, Don. I understand that the DNG will probably be more standard over the years than a NEF file will be. What are it's drawbacks?Size? Do I lose any EXIF data in the process or any quality through compression or in the conversion? Not trying to hijack the thread, but I think the answers to these questions might shed some light for others. Thanks.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Hopefully it will remain a standard at least with Adobe products :)

DNG files may end up a little bit smaller than the original NEF file, it is a small percentage, but over 10,000 images that can mean a little disk space savings, but I would not want to take it to the bank. In many cases the same dng file still takes up 28-30 mb as the nef did.

I have seen no loss of quality - dng is still the raw data that was present in the NEF. The compression is lossless or lossy - depending on your settings for conversion. I myself use lossless.

I have not seen any loss of exif info in the conversion.

The only drawback I saw was the amount of time to convert on import, so I switched to copy the nef on import, then select the keepers, delete the non-keepers and only convert the keepers... that saves a bit of time if 40% of the import are keepers.

As a note:

I make use of several plugins to Lightroom, one that depends on some of the "proprietary" exif info that I always assumed was lost in conversion to dng.... I like to be able to check focus points in image from time to time and always assumed that I lose that info when converting to DNG, however it is still there and accessible (maker Notes?).

The show focus points plugin is available here:

http://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Thanks for the reply, I like your approach, it only makes sense to convert after separating the wheat from the chaff. Also, I got that plug-in on your recommendation. It's handy. Now if I could only get to the point where 40% are keepers like you!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

There is one downside of DNGs for me. I'm a Canon shooter. Besides LR, I also occasionally use Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) software to process my raw images. If I convert them to DNG, they won't open in DPP. As a result I leave them in .cr2 format and keep all the edits in the LR catalog. Everyone's workflow and requirements may differ a bit. I'm glad Adobe provided the flexibility for a number of possible scenarios.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

10-4! When I was using Apple Aperture, it had a built in function to display focus points, but then I was using NEF, switching to Lightroom got me a better raw decoder I believe, but Lightroom did not have the focus point display, I had to stay NEF and use Nikon's View NX2 to see focus points. Then I found the show focus point plugin for Lightroom and found it could use DNG, so at that point I no longer needed View NX2 or to retain the NEF files as my original raw.

Supposedly, working with DNG is slightly faster over proprietary raw files, but I can't say for sure.

I hear ya - If you want to use non-Adobe products during editing then you may not be able to use DNG - you are forced to stay proprietary raw or convert to TIF or JPG.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I only just recently got to that 40% mark :) Hopefully I will stay there! In many cases it was more like 15-20% keepers!

That show focus points plugin is handy - glad it works for ya!

zigipha Loc: north nj

I believe that LR takes the NEF or other proprietary raw data and changes it to DNG raw format. So you don't exactly have the original NEF format.

This is one reason I have heard for "don't use DNG" - what if the conversion has a bug (unlikely but possible).

I had forgottent that DNG has the edits built in.

Do you know if DNG has only the data in XMP or if it has the other edited data (cropping is one thing that I have read is not part of the XMP).

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

I have yet to have a conversion problem happen, however, I understand, and my procedure has been to NOT erase the NEF files from the camera card until my editing of the converted NEF's are checked/complete, just in case I need the original NEF's again - others will have Lightroom maintain a copy of the original files on import.

The edit info within the DNG file would be what is in the XMP file as well as the raw data from the original conversion. I can display an edited DNG file in Finder on my Mac - it is exactly as the NEF file looks right out of the camera, if I display the same edited file in an Adobe product, it will be seen cropped or edited.

Cropping edits are part of XMP files....

Excerpt from XMP of a cropped NEF

crs:CropTop="0.203578"
crs:CropLeft="0.101789"
crs:CropBottom="1"
crs:CropRight="0.898211"
crs:CropAngle="0"
crs:CropConstrainToWarp="0"
crs:HasCrop="True"
crs:AlreadyApplied="False"
crs:RawFileName="DNG - 20141111-16-34-54.NEF">
<exif:ISOSpeedRatings>

redrocktom Loc: Sedona

Don, do you do any editing or application of presets before you do your keep/reject cull in LR?

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Not usually, most of the culling is to eliminate bad focus, and obviously blurry/shaky shots and bad composition, but sometimes I do move a few sliders just to see.

Shooting in raw there is a lot that can be saved at times for sure, so if there might be a chance it is a keeper for conversion, it may get trashed later though, but at least it makes it to the pot for conversion.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I think you answered your own question. Side-cars do not really add anything for those of use working in small, self-contained environments.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Don, I think you have worked very hard to convince yourself to use dng's. However, from reading some of your posts, I fail to see the advantage of dng's while the disadvantages of using up storage at twice the rate and making sure you keep track of everything are more than evident. I do not see any real advantage in a single-user environment.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

DNG's do not use storage at twice the rate of NEF raw files... as stated, often the DNG's are slightly smaller.

BUT space was not a concern as storage space is dirt cheap anymore.

For me, the use of raw was paramount - I want ALL the data from the sensor and I will decide what gets thrown out or used, not some programmer at Nikon who coded in the raw decoder-jpg conversion algorithm.

The fact that Lightroom maintains all edits in the catalog bothered me a little, the use of sidecar files to me was messy - DNG solved the sidecar issue, saves a tiny bit of space, maintains the original raw data, and is in a format that is supposedly faster to use.

When I need a jpg I can output any that are needed from my original raw files, and I can go back to any image as it came out of the camera at any time and start over for a completely different look.

Not sure what you mean by keeping track of everything, Lightroom and my backup software keep track of everything automatically.