• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • It's Lightroom update time again! Color Grading and improved zoom across the whole Lightroom family, plus graphical watermarks for the cloud-based Lightroom apps, as well as the usual new cameras, lens profiles and bug fixes. See this blog post for Lightroom Classic and this blog post for the Lightroom Cloud Ecosystem changes.

Creative Cloud only?

Jimmsp

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
1,030
Location
Green Valley, Arizona, USA
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Tom's just updated his blog post. It says:


You can debate the definition of indefinitely, and I'm sure people will, but I think it's as definite as they can get. They can't use the word forever as they can't foresee the future any more than we can.
I agree. I was a sr marketing exec in a high tech company. You can never promise "forever". All you can say is "as best we can see or forecast".
He did that. Good enough for me.
 

awp

Active Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
118
Location
Scotland
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
6.x
I missed the earlier discussion. However, 'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future. We have plans to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely' seems like we don't have too much to worry about....yet!
 

PatrickC

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
178
Location
UK
Yep, I would suggest that Apple look hard and fast at supporting Lightroom users to make the transition.

I will not be coerced into buying in to a Cloud model. If that's the way Adobe go, then they lose me as a customer, even though I was very active in the LR1 beta program, work and advice which I gave to Adobe free of charge, expecting nothing.

I feel let down and angry.

Patrick Cunningham
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,641
Location
Houston, TX USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Cloud Service
Yep, I would suggest that Apple look hard and fast at supporting Lightroom users to make the transition.
I would not look to Apple for any support here. Aperture is 2.5 years out of date. Except for new camera support, there has not been a new version of Aperture since Jan 2011.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
5,523
Location
London
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Yep, I would suggest that Apple look hard and fast at supporting Lightroom users to make the transition.

I will not be coerced into buying in to a Cloud model. If that's the way Adobe go, then they lose me as a customer, even though I was very active in the LR1 beta program, work and advice which I gave to Adobe free of charge, expecting nothing.

I feel let down and angry.

Patrick Cunningham
A quote for you.... "I'm currently CTO at Adobe, where I shape Adobe's long-term technology vision and focus innovation across the company along the lines of multiscreen, cloud, and social computing. The most recent embodiment of this work is Adobe Creative Cloud for creative professionals"

Well, the guy who wrote that is no longer at Adobe - in March he joined.... Apple.

John
 

PatrickC

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
178
Location
UK
And thereby hang some of the problems we face today. We are held captive - enslaved even. Our apparent purpose in life is to enrich the corporations who control the world. These days they don't need to own it, the control is economic not geographic.

Catch 22: use a product which works well, but puts you under the control of a mega corporation with whose ethics you have problems, or use a different product which doesn't work so well, which puts you under the control of a mega corporation with whose ethics you have problems. Or use something which is clunky, inefficient, even more poorly supported and requires you to mix and match several products to get enough functionality to run your business.

You may call me paranoid. I am not. There are significant problems ahead in our relationship with unelected, unaccountable amoral corporations.

For me it's good enough for the moment that there appear to be no immediate plans to make Lightroom rent only. I will be forced to downgrade to Photoshop Elements, but I can continue with Adobe and will do so until they move these to the so-called Cloud - such a cosy, comforting, endearing term for enslavement: stop paying and you lose the lot. With Lightroom, that means losing all the work you have done on your archive unless you write everything to tiffs before the plug gets pulled. I shall never go to the position where I am that much under their control. Fortunately I am old enough that I can probably avoid being dragged into their trap.

I wouldn't use one myself, but I hope there are hackers out there busily developing Cloud bypass hacks. Adobe deserve the losses.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
5,523
Location
London
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Of course, because I use DNGs I don't worry about converting to TIFs if I felt forced to move away from Adobe. I could easily use one of a number of other non-Adobe programs to print or output my raw files with all their Lightroom adjustments. But would I move away if they limited Lightroom to subscription? I wonder if we will have much real choice.

John
 

Bryan Conner

Active Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
276
Location
Ravensburg, Germany
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Of course, because I use DNGs I don't worry about converting to TIFs if I felt forced to move away from Adobe. I could easily use one of a number of other non-Adobe programs to print or output my raw files with all their Lightroom adjustments. But would I move away if they limited Lightroom to subscription? I wonder if we will have much real choice.

John
John, what do you think the chances are that one day our dng files that were created upon import by Lightroom will not be read by another program? I know that Capture One for example will open the dng files with fast load etc generated by LR5 with no problem. But, it makes me apprehensive to think that one day I may not have access to my raw files. I wonder if my Canon CR2 files are more future proof. What are your (or anyone else) thoughts on this matter?
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
12,538
Location
West Sussex, UK
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
I have no such apprehensions. Sure, things will change in the future, and likely some changes will impact on the way I work today.....but it's not going to be so sudden that I wake up one morning to find I've lost access to all my files. This stuff evolves, and I'll make tactical decisions based on that evolution.....but I'll not make strategic decisions today thinking that I'm somehow future-proofing myself against the impact of something that may or may not happen in the future. I'll make the decision if and when that "something" is announced.

Call me an ostrich if you like, I don't mind. I've been called worse.:D
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
5,523
Location
London
Lightroom Experience
Power User
John, what do you think the chances are that one day our dng files that were created upon import by Lightroom will not be read by another program? I know that Capture One for example will open the dng files with fast load etc generated by LR5 with no problem. But, it makes me apprehensive to think that one day I may not have access to my raw files. I wonder if my Canon CR2 files are more future proof. What are your (or anyone else) thoughts on this matter?
We're talking about slightly different things here, Bryan. I was specifically addressing the point about saving everything as TIF if one wanted to salvage all your adjustment work, and for this purpose I don't have any worries. The DNG can store an updated JPEG reflecting your adjustments, and plenty of low level programs grab those embedded JPEGs and print or output an image that's effectively-indistinguishable from one produced by Lightroom.

Your real query is about a risk of DNGs not being readable by any program. First I think we need to confine discussion to mainstream programs for humans - not the butt-ugly utilities out there that will indeed read the files but aren't for most people. Second, we can't worry too much about temporary bumps such as how C1 didn't read DNGs with fast load data, because whenever Adobe improve the spec there will be a lag before others read it properly (that said, apps don't need to reject the entire file simply because it contained supplementary elements they don't understand).

Even if we're assuming Adobe are beyond the pale, for whatever reason, I think DNG will always be readable in mainstream programs, just like CR2 or NEF will always be readable in another program (that's not why DNG is so good!). But the doubts are more about the choice of programs and whether you can still use the one you want to use. DNGs will always be readable in some program or other, but are they readable in the mainstream program you prefer to use, and secondly how well are they read? Raw files give you a few more options, but I'd argue you'll still have enough options with DNGs.

Right now for example Aperture handles DNGs exactly if they were proprietary raw files from the original camera, but do you want to switch OS? OK, that's not such a big deal nowadays. Or take how C1 handles DNGs as second class citizens, by which I mean if you import a CR2 raw file, C1 recognizes it's from a specific camera and applies all sorts of C1 magic, but if it's a DNG from the same camera they simply treat is as a generic DNG. It doesn't look too bad, but you're not getting the best that C1 offers - for instance, you can't apply their lens corrections. I feel they are bone-headed over DNG and all my contacts with them over the years indicate it's a firm belief coming from those who drive the product, but I'd hope their recent attempts to sell C1 to Lightroom customers (apart from importing LR catalogue, so much of their marketing and presentations are geared to trying to gain LR users) are signs that they will have to change if they want those efforts to succeed. That's two mainstream apps, and I'm rather expecting Google to enter the market and handle raw data, and I can't see why they wouldn't handle DNG for the same competitive transition reasons.

So I'm optimistic, but I've always been in the camp of advocating DNG and keeping raw files as an additional backup.

John
 
Last edited:

Jimmsp

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
1,030
Location
Green Valley, Arizona, USA
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
....... I can continue with Adobe and will do so until they move these to the so-called Cloud - ..... With Lightroom, that means losing all the work you have done on your archive unless you write everything to tiffs before the plug gets pulled.....
Personally, I don't see the big problem here.
If and when LR moves to the cloud only, I have a new place in time to make a decision.
My archives stay intact, and I always have access to them with the LR that I purchased "before cloud" - I will lose nothing.

Then, I make an informed decision. Do I move to the cloud, or not. My choice, not theirs. If I choose not to, I then start processing with another piece of software that I buy, and move on.
If I move to the cloud, I know what I have to do to move forward and keep all my new work done within the cloud accessible. I might choose DNGs, or Tiffs. But I can choose.

However, I already know what I will probably do - I will work with a new software package (most likely Capture One which I already use). My choice; unless CO and everything else moves to the cloud as well.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,641
Location
Houston, TX USA
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Cloud Service
Personally, I don't see the big problem here.
If and when LR moves to the cloud only...
I don't see that happening in the next 2-3 years. Maybe never. I do see LR data accessible through the cloud (catalogs and Smart Previews). Don't lose sight of the fact that the Adobe Cloud has two different meanings. One is a monthly subscription serves where the Adobe app needs to "Phone Home". The other is the seamless transfer of data stored in the cloud.

Where I think Adobe screwed up is bundling the two into one subscription service.
 

Bryan Conner

Active Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
276
Location
Ravensburg, Germany
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
We're talking about slightly different things here, Bryan. I was specifically addressing the point about saving everything as TIF if one wanted to salvage all your adjustment work, and for this purpose I don't have any worries. The DNG can store an updated JPEG reflecting your adjustments, and plenty of low level programs grab those embedded JPEGs and print or output an image that's effectively-indistinguishable from one produced by Lightroom.

Your real query is about a risk of DNGs not being readable by any program. First I think we need to confine discussion to mainstream programs for humans - not the butt-ugly utilities out there that will indeed read the files but aren't for most people. Second, we can't worry too much about temporary bumps such as how C1 didn't read DNGs with fast load data, because whenever Adobe improve the spec there will be a lag before others read it properly (that said, apps don't need to reject the entire file simply because it contained supplementary elements they don't understand).

Even if we're assuming Adobe are beyond the pale, for whatever reason, I think DNG will always be readable in mainstream programs, just like CR2 or NEF will always be readable in another program (that's not why DNG is so good!). But the doubts are more about the choice of programs and whether you can still use the one you want to use. DNGs will always be readable in some program or other, but are they readable in the mainstream program you prefer to use, and secondly how well are they read? Raw files give you a few more options, but I'd argue you'll still have enough options with DNGs.

Right now for example Aperture handles DNGs exactly if they were proprietary raw files from the original camera, but do you want to switch OS? OK, that's not such a big deal nowadays. Or take how C1 handles DNGs as second class citizens, by which I mean if you import a CR2 raw file, C1 recognizes it's from a specific camera and applies all sorts of C1 magic, but if it's a DNG from the same camera they simply treat is as a generic DNG. It doesn't look too bad, but you're not getting the best that C1 offers - for instance, you can't apply their lens corrections. I feel they are bone-headed over DNG and all my contacts with them over the years indicate it's a firm belief coming from those who drive the product, but I'd hope their recent attempts to sell C1 to Lightroom customers (apart from importing LR catalogue, so much of their marketing and presentations are geared to trying to gain LR users) are signs that they will have to change if they want those efforts to succeed. That's two mainstream apps, and I'm rather expecting Google to enter the market and handle raw data, and I can't see why they wouldn't handle DNG for the same competitive transition reasons.

So I'm optimistic, but I've always been in the camp of advocating DNG and keeping raw files as an additional backup.

John

I had not used C1 in a while before today. I only have C1 Express 6.4.4 as I did a trial of C1v7 and did not see any advantage over LR4.

I took a shot of a ColorChecker and converted my Canon 7d raw files to dng in LR5. I also copied the CR2 files to the same folder without the dng conversion. The dng files and the CR2 files look identical in LR5. They have the same white balance etc. Even when I do a custom white balance in LR5 using the bhite balance dropper, I get the same results regardless of if the file is the dng or the CR2 version. C1 is not the same. The white balance is not the same between the dng and the CR2 files regardless if the method is auto, shot, or a custom white balance. I agree, this is a terrible (and maybe unexcusable) handling of two different formats of the same raw file.

I never thought about the point of view that dng files are probably as future safe as any other raw format. There are of course, some cameras that use dng as their raw format. So, in that respect, dng files are the same as CR2 or NEF files. All are raw formats that are used by camera manufacturers.

The end result of this train of thought is that I will resume converting my images into dngs and enjoy all of the benefits.
 
Last edited:

PatrickC

Active Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
178
Location
UK
Can someone explain what the benefits are in dng? When they were first introduced, and since, I have followed the arguments, but I couldn't see any real advantage. It is, after all, just another way of representing original pixels recorded in a digital camera. But it strips away any quirky extras a camera manufacturer builds in to their raw format, potentially reducing the sophistication of how the user interfaces with the image.

I can see that an archive left stagnant for years might stand a better chance of being readable by someone much later - maybe after 20 years, when specs have moved on (assuming that the media remains readable). But for an active archive, the owner will always know when (if it ever were to happen!) any of the formats in his archive was about to become obsolete and unreadable. I would argue that the chance of the media becoming unreadable is far greater than the chance of the image file format becoming unreadable.

My decision then was to stick with Nikon .nef files. I still don't see the need to change; if I have another copy of the pixels, that means another whole drive full of files and another whole drive full of backups. That would mean six copies against my current four (two generated at capture, two more when the image is developed).

Capture One seems to agree, though I have never used it.

I suppose this might be getting OT, but it does remain relevant to switching software, and is therefore relevant to the thread.

Patrick Cunningham
 

Bryan Conner

Active Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
276
Location
Ravensburg, Germany
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
One advantage that I see to dng file format is the fact that I do not have an xmp file along with my Canon CR2 file. All of the data is contained within the dng file itself. So, one file vs two files. I do not keep my Canon raw files, only the dng file. I do not see Canon's software as being a replacement for Adobe software in my future. Another advantage to me is smaller file size. Yes, hard drive space is cheap, but smaller is smaller. I do not envision dng files becoming unreadable any sooner than CR2 or NEF files. Dng is the native raw format in many cameras.

Capture one will read dng files, but it does not treat them the same as it does raw files of another format. If you have a dng and a CR2 or NEF file of the same image, Capture One does not treat them the same. They do not look the same at the default settings. In Lightroom or ACR, they look the same. This is a failure of C1 in my opinion.

In the end, I think that you have to use the format that is best for you. Arguments can be made all day long about which is best. I can only say what is best for me personally.
 
Top