Tried Lightroom Trial...

[PhotoCruiser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Bronski:

I only get XMP-files for NEF, ARW or other RAW-file formats that are not DNG. I guess Adobe can't change those formats to include the changes that have been made. Since my edits are preserved even through exporting and reimporting DNGs, that must mean the changes that are saved to XMP for other RAW-formats are written into DNG-files.

Yes, that is my knowledge too, the xmp or whatever else data is inside the DNG.

vor 42 Minuten schrieb evikne:

The powerful library module is the main reason why I use LR Classic. You can sort, search and organize images in all sorts of ways. And you can expand further with additional plug-ins. For me, there's no real alternative.

Yep, this is why i use Lightroom from Version 1 on and a few months i added the classification plugin to make finding a particular photo faster as finding a photo in a catalog of about 80K Photos and videos can be time consuming if i cant remember when wnd where i took it.
In 2020 i switched to Capture1 as then Lightroom had a problem with inaccurate pointer position what made editing very complicated.
However, i did not liked C1 particularly and after Adobe corrected the pointer problem i got back to Lightroom and see no reason to change again.

Chris

[PhotoCruiser]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

That is correct They are an universal storage file that contains (amongst other things) raw data

It can store raw data from all digital cameras, as opposed to proprietary files like .NEF or .CRW which are brand- specific. .For that purpose Adobe offers their DNG converter.  
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raw/dng-file.html

.XMP files are metadata files that are meant to preserve non-raw data throughout the postprocessing process, be it destructive or non-destructive. The are not image files and thus only separated  from raw files as the are presented by the camera. 
If a cameras produces .DNG files natively these data are written into the .DNG file  so there is no  need for a .XMP (Extended Metadata Platform)

https://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/metadata-adobe-bridge.html

 

Yes, this is my knowledge too

But back to the statement that the JPG's look flatter than the DNG's,
it depend on the camera and probably (i never use JPG,s) also the import settings of Lightroom that they look different, same as DNG's and the settings when importing them.

Chris

Edited April 8 by PhotoCruiser

[zeitz]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

If a cameras produces .DNG files natively these data are written into the .DNG file  so there is no  need for a .XMP (Extended Metadata Platform)

Adobe products give you the option to store processing data in either the .dng file or a .xmp sidecar.  If you chose (default) to store processing data in the .dng file, the file date seen in Finder or Explorer will change to the last processing date.  

A real raw file does not have an image in it.  It is simply the readings from each pixel on the sensor.  A converter is needed to make an image out of the direct pixel data.  A raw file has three sections - the pixel data, metadata from the settings on your camera, and processing changes if the raw file format allows it.  tiff and psd which are image files allow 16 bit data depth.  Other file formats may not.

[jaapv]

ACR used to have the option to convert to 32 bits I’ve never been sure whether it was useful. 

[zeitz]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

ACR used to have the option to convert to 32 bits I’ve never been sure whether it was useful. 

In Photoshop, the Image->Mode steps allow conversion to 32 bits.  I don't know who would use it.

[jaapv]

8 Bits files should be processed in 16 bits mode to prevent posterizing. In theory the same goes for 16 bits in 32 bits mode. In real life 16 bits is deep enough to only make this a potential  issue during extreme processing. 

 

[zeitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

8 Bits files should be processed in 16 bits to prevent posterizing. In theory the same goes for 16 bits in 32 bits. In real life 16 bits is deep enough to only make this a potential  issue during extreme processing. 

I know the effect you are referring to, but I have not processed many 8 bit files (.jpg).  Now I'm tempted to convert a .psd file to 32 bits and see what the difference might be.

[jaapv]

No, nor I for a long time.  Scott Kelby  once.explained it to me - donkey's years ago (at Photokina 2006) - like this. 
Imagine postprocessing like this:  8 filled  buckets in a row - Processing is shiting the content of a bucket into the next. That mixes the content so you can never shift back and that all through the row. Using 16 buckets and only filling 8 with an empty bucket next to it prevents this degradation. 

[jaapv]

Of course this is irrelevant in LR as it is non-destructive.

[zeitz]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Of course this is irrelevant in LR as it is non-destructive.

Photoshop is also non-destructive.  Raw file mods are saved in the .xmp sidecar and are there to be modified again.  The Develop module in Lightroom is ACR; they are now essentially the same.  The changes are also non-destructive in a .psd file, unless you flatten the layers.

[jaapv]

Yes, if people do work in layers. But it is still interesting, as you say, to see if posterizing can be provoked working on 16 bits files in 16 bit mode.

[SrMi]

On 4/8/2025 at 10:51 PM, zeitz said:

In Photoshop, the Image->Mode steps allow conversion to 32 bits.  I don't know who would use it.

HDR needs it.