thighslapper Posted July 22, 2014 Share #41 Posted July 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Personally I wouldn't trust any of these programs (LR, Aperture etc) to convert, copy or store any of my images. I import direct from card to a folder which I know is regularly backed up. Aperture/LR etc. is set to import/add to the catalogue but leave the files in the original location ..... so the catalogue only contains the thumbnails and modification data when the files are 'processed'. You may regard this as 'luddite' behaviour ...... but I like to know where the originals really are ..... and that I have control over what is being done to them..... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Hi thighslapper, Take a look here M 240 RAW Files. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CheshireCat Posted July 22, 2014 Share #42 Posted July 22, 2014 If there is a change, and when I export original in LR, will it bring it back to original dng? If you want the original file saved by the camera then just save it before importing. I never cared to save the original files because Lightroom may rewrite a different kind of DNG format, but will not alter raw sensor information. What's than the export dng option for? There are a few export options, but mainly this is for backward interoperability with older software. You may try to export the files as "Camera Raw 2.4" and see if C1 thinks they are still corrupted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 22, 2014 Share #43 Posted July 22, 2014 You may regard this as 'luddite' behaviour ...... but I like to know where the originals really are ..... and that I have control over what is being done to them..... Well, I guess I am in outer space since I have 4 places I keep originals plus a fifth off site. With 4TB 3.5" drives now costing $175 I could care less what backup costs me. Many images I could never/would never be able to replace. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithlaban.co.uk Posted July 22, 2014 Share #44 Posted July 22, 2014 Well, I guess I am in outer space since I have 4 places I keep originals plus a fifth off site. With 4TB 3.5" drives now costing $175 I could care less what backup costs me. Many images I could never/would never be able to replace. Ditto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 22, 2014 Share #45 Posted July 22, 2014 ditto ....... two seperate auto back-ups and a manual one I do every few weeks and keep in the safe ....... if we didn't have such an awful broadband connection I would use internet storage as well ..... you cannot put a price on lost photos ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 22, 2014 Share #46 Posted July 22, 2014 I am not blaming anybody, I just don't subscribe to the idea that one should modify their originals. A copy yes, but not the original file. Adobe disagrees, that's their choice. It's as simple as that. I think that there are more options rather than disagreement from Adobe on this. Add to catalog doesn't help for importing from your cards of course, but you can choose to copy to new location (preserving the files as is) or copy as DNG (whatever source raw format). In either instance you can also choose to make a second copy in parallel to another location normally and that copy is not 'copied as DNG'. I haven't checked for a while because I have always used 'copy as DNG' because originally that meant (optional) lossless compression was used. Now that is always done. I don't understand the remarks about the final files being larger though. Mine have always been significantly smaller (by choice). Perhaps an experiment is in order. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted July 23, 2014 Share #47 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, Adobe give a large amount of options, but as such we need to understand what that means to our DAM. Each choice had consequences, we should understand what they are. I see the validity of saving the modifications of an image in the file it's self, if you live in a pure Adobe world, but their is a risk, and you need to make an informed choice. I spent most of my career fixing the files people said where absolutely safe, but were so head strong they never followed the basic rules of DAM. The larger file size comes from when you start to have a large amount of edits, larger previews etc., Instead of putting that information in a database, it goes in the file. Over time your file increases in size. Edited July 23, 2014 by swamiji Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted July 23, 2014 Share #48 Posted July 23, 2014 Interesting. In this X-Vario thread I wrote I noticed with some consternation that my X-Vario .dng files after importing into LR5.5 as 'Copy As DNG' are more than doubling in size. On the SD card, typical file size is circa 25Mb yet after import that same file becomes circa 65Mb! This is not something that happens with the files from my M240 using the same import methodology. If I choose just 'Copy', then the X-Vario files only increase very slightly in size. Anyone else with an X-Vario noticing the same unwelcome phenomenon and if so, any ideas as to why? . Whilst there is a lot of interesting background information here, I still puzzle as to the merits or not of choosing 'copy as .dng' over just 'copy', particularly for Leicas where there are no profiles in LR's Develop/Lens Correction/profile drop down box (e.g. X-Vario and C). Is LR5.5 applying corrections to the X-Vario files or are they already built into the o-o-c .dng? (Sorry for the slight hijack!). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 23, 2014 Share #49 Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Adobe DNG is a type of RAW file, like CR2 or NEF, for example. The last two mentioned RAW file types are from Canon and Nikon. It is more likely that these last two file types (there are many more than this) will not be supported in the future compared to DNG from Adobe. For example, many of the original Kodak file types are no longer supported by Kodak themselves. Converting to a standardized format like DNG is more likely to be supported in the future. Adobe PDF file format was disclosed and submitted to the ISO Standard body for standardization approval in early 1990 and has been used ever since by many manufactures. Adobe's DNG has also been disclosed and submitted to ISO as well. Adobe has stated they will not charge or license it. It is pretty clear to me that this will probably be the most durable file format far into the future. Leica already uses the DNG format as their version of RAW. The advantage of importing as: Copy as DNG (in LightRoom) is that your files are updated to the most current version of DNG which I believe is in LR 5.4. Converting retains all file information. Newer versions of DNG have some advantages over the earlier version Leica uses. For example, from LR 3.6 forward Adobe has started storing the information tiled which takes advantage of multi-core processors' ability to read the files. Also, Adobe has developed a faster way for previews to be read which speeds up the time it takes to view your images in LR 4.0 forward. Leica RAW files are already in the DNG format so, I see few reasons to not convert them to the most recent version of DNG in order to take advantage of advances Adobe has made in the native RAW format Leica uses. Rick Edited July 23, 2014 by RickLeica 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted July 23, 2014 Share #50 Posted July 23, 2014 RL You are just a wealth of information. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted July 23, 2014 Share #51 Posted July 23, 2014 Leica RAW files are already in the DNG format so, I see few reasons to not convert them to the most recent version of DNG in order to take advantage of advances Adobe has made in the native RAW format Leica uses. Rick Except where doing so results in 25mb files becoming 65Mb! Ref post #48. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted July 23, 2014 Share #52 Posted July 23, 2014 Except where doing so results in 25mb files becoming 65Mb! Ref post #48. Keith - My files seem to stay the same size on conversion. Check your settings as you may be choosing to imbed the original file and or may be choosing file compatibility with something less that Camera Raw 7.1. Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 25, 2014 Share #53 Posted July 25, 2014 The thread mentions files from the X Vario as well as from the M. I can't speak on the X Vario from personal experience as yet. They ought to be smaller than those from the M in theory. I did find some from the X1 back from 2010 I just checked. I have lossless compression selected in my M both the file copied as DNG (current standard) and the second copy optionally made automatically on import to a different location are now very similar sizes here. That is a change by the way as the second copy used to be uncompressed. You could optionally just file copy from the card if you wanted of course. The primary copy is slightly larger which presumably is due to the edit information written into the file itself (rather than to a sidecar file as with other raw formats). I checked about 20 files. They vary a little due to the lossless compression efficiency according to content. In my examples the M DNG is about 24.7MB and the back up 24.2MB. The primary and backup copies of the X1 DNGs I have are about 10MB each. I don't understand how you can generate a 60MB plus DNG from the X Vario even if the original DNG is being embedded in the new DNG perhaps. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedi996sps Posted July 25, 2014 Share #54 Posted July 25, 2014 Interesting. In this X-Vario thread I wrote . Whilst there is a lot of interesting background information here, I still puzzle as to the merits or not of choosing 'copy as .dng' over just 'copy', particularly for Leicas where there are no profiles in LR's Develop/Lens Correction/profile drop down box (e.g. X-Vario and C). Is LR5.5 applying corrections to the X-Vario files or are they already built into the o-o-c .dng? (Sorry for the slight hijack!). I wondered that too? presumably the camera makes corrections for the lens (6bit coding) and then in LR, you can correct again for the Lens? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted July 25, 2014 Share #55 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't understand how you can generate a 60MB plus DNG from the X Vario even if the original DNG is being embedded in the new DNG perhaps. Neither do I, hence the question! When I use the same settings in LR5.5 to import files as 'copy as .dng' from an M240, X-Vario and a C, it is only the X-Vario files that suffer the huge size increase. Obviously in future I will just 'copy' the X-Vario files into LR. As it happens I recently downloaded a trial copy of Capture1 Pro and file size does not increase. It also seems to have a profile for the X-Vario whereas LR does not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.