I am using Capture 1 Pro; but I figure this may also apply to PhotoShop/LR users. What is your preference? Pros/Cons? I shoot RAW.
Thanks.
Just something more to back-up. For LR, if you feared your catalog could be corrupted, you'd have the edit info in the sidecar file. But, if you think about how you could lose your catalog but not your image files and side car files all at the same time, you see it's just another set of files to back-up.
So you are a fan of embedded metadata.
jbk224 wrote:
So you are a fan of embedded metadata.
You might need to define your meaning of "Embedded Metadata" to clarify, because 'edit instructions' in general cannot be embedded into the RAW file. Rather, edit instructions are stored in the tool's proprietary tool / database or a sidecar file (or both). For a RAW file, the only 'embedded metadata' is data that was captured by the camera we call EXIF data. None of the 3rd party editors
write more / new data into the RAW file. I believe the only exception is Canon's DPP that is specific to Canon RAW. And even then, Canon's RAW edits are readable only to DPP. Other software opening a Canon RAW see only the image data and EXIF and none of DPP's instructions. The RAW files are proprietary and universally not editable. Only the EXIF data can be modified with something like EXIFTool to update / change the EXIF data, that's literally just text in the file 'header', not the image data in the 'body'. DPP's edits are written into that 'header' area, just in a format understood only by DPP.
The side cars contain descriptors of how to modify the image. I have FastRawViewer, for example, where I can rotate an image and add star / color ratings. These XMP files are recognized when I import the image into LR. If I set LR to continue to maintain the XMP files and I then want to 'share' those edits, I have a few options:
a) I can send the file and XMP and another LR user could import these, as well as other XMP-reading software, with probably limits of what those other tools can read / understand of Adobe's XMP-embedded data.
b) I can export the edited image from LR into one of a few of transferable formats, including DNG that transfers the image and LR edits as a single importable file, again where the usefulness depends on the target software's ability to use the DNG or another format.
What I can't do is write edit-instruction data into the RAW file and transfer only the RAW file around. I'm concerned your use of "Embedded Metadata" in this discussion is misleading and inaccurate as XMP and "Embedded Metadata" are not a technical choice relative to options of sharing / maintaining the edit instructions of a RAW file.
I think you are right about my use of terms. I need to wrap my head around this better.
Thanks.
CHG_CANON wrote:
You might need to define your meaning of "Embedded Metadata" to clarify, because 'edit instructions' in general cannot be embedded into the RAW file. Rather, edit instructions are stored in the tool's proprietary tool / database or a sidecar file (or both). For a RAW file, the only 'embedded metadata' is data that was captured by the camera we call EXIF data. None of the 3rd party editors write more / new data into the RAW file. I believe the only exception is Canon's DPP that is specific to Canon RAW. And even then, Canon's RAW edits are readable only to DPP. Other software opening a Canon RAW see only the image data and EXIF and none of DPP's instructions. The RAW files are proprietary and universally not editable. Only the EXIF data can be modified with something like EXIFTool to update / change the EXIF data, that's literally just text in the file 'header', not the image data in the 'body'. DPP's edits are written into that 'header' area, just in a format understood only by DPP.
The side cars contain descriptors of how to modify the image. I have FastRawViewer, for example, where I can rotate an image and add star / color ratings. These XMP files are recognized when I import the image into LR. If I set LR to continue to maintain the XMP files and I then want to 'share' those edits, I have a few options:
a) I can send the file and XMP and another LR user could import these, as well as other XMP-reading software, with probably limits of what those other tools can read / understand of Adobe's XMP-embedded data.
b) I can export the edited image from LR into one of a few of transferable formats, including DNG that transfers the image and LR edits as a single importable file, again where the usefulness depends on the target software's ability to use the DNG or another format.
What I can't do is write edit-instruction data into the RAW file and transfer only the RAW file around. I'm concerned your use of "Embedded Metadata" in this discussion is misleading and inaccurate as XMP and "Embedded Metadata" are not a technical choice relative to options of sharing / maintaining the edit instructions of a RAW file.
You might need to define your meaning of "Emb... (
show quote)
I saw this article, seems to argue one pro of DNG is embedded vs. Sidecar. I know little about it nor have a position other than folks here said I should stay raw so I did.
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
bleirer wrote:
I saw this article, seems to argue one pro of DNG is embedded vs. Sidecar. I know little about it nor have a position other than folks here said I should stay raw so I did.
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-rawThis is a different discussion with some overlap, but no direct relation to the original question about XMP files. The various tools / vendors and configuration options then intersect with various file formats; they all combine in a host of unique ways and decisions trees.
The way to cut through the forest of options and confusion is to consider, as the individual photographer: what do I want to accomplish regarding a) reuse / sharing of my edits (if at all) and b) efficient creation of back-up data and c) efficient and complete recovery from my back-up data should a disaster hit my computer harddrive, image files and edit instructions. Do have I have a complete back-up and do I know how to use it to recover? Far too many people realize, too late, there are too many "no's" in these related / overlapping questions.
Lost me. too early in the morning, I will try to follow this again later.
MichaelH wrote:
I do not use Capture 1 Pro so I cannot comment on ... (
show quote)
I thought if you edit it tiff in Photoshop, everything is written into the tiff file and there is no need for a sidecar? Admittedly out of my depth.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
CHG_CANON wrote:
... it's just another set of files to back-up.
I keep the xmp files in the same folder as the raw files so I back up the folder, not individual files. XMP files are included automatically. I don't have to think about it.
DirtFarmer wrote:
I keep the xmp files in the same folder as the raw files so I back up the folder, not individual files. XMP files are included automatically. I don't have to think about it.
Agreed, a rather immaterial issue in size and location, causing one to wonder why it comes up regularly for consideration.
catalog backups will go quicker if you use the XMP file system, as LR is just needing to update text files. I prefer having all my eggs in the one basket: DNG.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
TGanner wrote:
catalog backups will go quicker if you use the XMP file system, as LR is just needing to update text files. I prefer having all my eggs in the one basket: DNG.
If you choose to use dng you should back up your dng files after every editing session.
If you choose to use xmp you should back up your xmp files after every editing session.
there seems to be a lot of people that don't really understand this process. notice 2 completely different descriptions above. I think I am also one who doesn't know what he is talking about also. but...
there are a few fields that are only stored in the raw file, a few fields that are only stored in the catalog file. some of those fields can be stored by Lightroom in a xmp file instead of in the raw or catalog file. a few years ago it was clearly stated by adobe and others that the xmp file choice was more secure and quicker. don't have the quotes however. so I went that way.
now I am not so sure and plan on researching this again myself. y'all keep telling me how it works please.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.