• 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.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

DNG problems (again)

Status
Not open for further replies.

gYab61zH

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
263
Location
Germany
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Lightroom Version Number
LR Classic CC 10.2
Operating System
  1. macOS 10.15 Catalina
I read with some interest an earlier discussion here about people running into problems with DNG files because when they get updated the entire file needs to be backed up again. The solution offered by several contributors was an easy one, namely deactivate the option in Catalog Settings, "Automatically write changes into XMP." So far so good, but why doesn't anyone mention the other option "Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, PNG, and PSD files." XMP files are tiny, but TIFFs etc can be quite large. Why would one leave this option active? To add to the confusion, why aren't DNG files mentioned in any of these settings?
 
Writing changes to XMP happens with all files. To prevent the whole file from getting a new backup you want to make sure this option off. This prevents Lightroom from updating the XMP section of non proprietary files such as JPEG, TIFF, PNG, PSD and DNG. Only Proprietary RAW file like NEF, CR2 etc, will get a separate XMP file.

To answer your question, “Why would one leave this option active?” I can’t think of a valid reason. It is a choice for insecure people when everything in the XMP is included in backups of the catalog file.

Note that when developing the cloud based Lightroom app, these choices are not even available.
 
Thanks Cletus, but what about this second setting referred to ("Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, PNG, and PSD files."). How does that differ from "Automatically write changes into XMP" and why would one activate it?
 
Thanks Cletus, but what about this second setting referred to ("Include Develop settings in metadata inside JPEG, TIFF, PNG, and PSD files."). How does that differ from "Automatically write changes into XMP" and why would one activate it?
You might activate it if you want to write your non-destructive edits to these types files as a backup feature. ‘Automatically write changes into XMP’ simply means what it says: that any writing to XMP is done automatically (regardless of that first option).
 
Thanks Johan. It is all a matter how you formulate things. It would have been much better if the option in Catalog Settings, "Automatically write changes into XMP" and its connection to "Develop settings in metadata..." had been made clear. As it stands it could hardly be more confusing, something that is not helped by leaving DNG files completely out of it.
 
To answer your question, “Why would one leave this option active?” I can’t think of a valid reason. It is a choice for insecure people when everything in the XMP is included in backups of the catalog file.
I'm the first to admit I'm not great at out of the camera results. Much of my art, if one can dignify it as that, is achieved in PP. I've digitised thousands of film prints. A print captures the art of both the photographer and the developer. I'd like to think that when I'm gone and maybe long after, someone may want to look at my images. If so, there would be many barriers to them seeing the images as intended, most of all the whereabouts of the catalogue. Of course, I could convert everything to TIFF or JPEG and I may well do so if I'm not taken before then. In the mean time, I feel happier knowing that each image file contains my edits which may make it easier for others in the future to see the image as intended. For many, photography is a business with no place for sentiment so this is not an issue. I fully understand appreciate that.
 
To answer your question, “Why would one leave this option active?” I can’t think of a valid reason. It is a choice for insecure people when everything in the XMP is included in backups of the catalog file.
I use XMP's for three reasons:
  • Since Adobe does not provide any published API's into LrC or it's DB, I scan the XMP to file the Rating of pictures to determine if I will back them up a cloud account. I don't have an unlimited internet plan.
  • Insurance. If I ever find a better tool than LrC (I am quite happy now), or Adobe does something to make me want to leave, the XMP's can be read by some third party post processing editors.
  • A minor point, the XMP provides another level of backup over the catalog and catalog backup.
 
Quote “ the XMP's can be read by some third party post processing editors.”
They can read some of the data, things like develop edits are proprietary to LrC and ACR.
Not all of them, for example crops are widely shared, I think exposure maybe white balance can be. I think more companies are chipping away at compatibility.
 
All well and good I am more concerned with preserving my raw files. Whatever I leave behind will have applications that will have the capacity to render them with better editing features. I began shooting raw in my digital cameras 16 years ago and they are still supported and I am now able to adit with better profiles, lens corrections, noise reduction, resizing and multiple other enhancements. Raw file rendering applications are not yet mature and continue to improve.
 
All well and good I am more concerned with preserving my raw files. Whatever I leave behind will have applications that will have the capacity to render them with better editing features. I began shooting raw in my digital cameras 16 years ago and they are still supported and I am now able to adit with better profiles, lens corrections, noise reduction, resizing and multiple other enhancements. Raw file rendering applications are not yet mature and continue to improve.
I hope propriety raw files are as future proof as you think but I'm not so sure.
 
Who know what is future proof, DNG? The major camera manufacturers do not support DNG and there are several other third party applications that support the majority of raw camera files. I use LrC as my main application for rendering my raw files and they still support all the cameras I have ever used.
If things start to go south I will be aware and if my best option is to convert to DNG then I will be able to do a conversion. There is no way I would begin using DNG files and despose of my original raw files since I do not perceive any benefit with my existing workflow.
I have LrC and PS and when I need to do additional edits I use the “edit in PS” option. I do not do XMP not do is do DNG.
I also have several other third party raw rendering application, ON 1, SilkyPix, C1 and my camera software.
I consider LrC as an alternative to Bridge / ACR with many additional benefits.
 
Last edited:
Who know what is future proof, DNG?
IF a manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for a proprietary RAW format, there will be ample time to convert the Proprietary RAW file to a newer RAW format.
 
IF a manufacturer goes out of business or discontinues support for a proprietary RAW format, there will be ample time to convert the Proprietary RAW file to a newer RAW format.
That's true of course. Actually, I may be facing this possibility in the near future. Time will tell.
 
That's true of course. Actually, I may be facing this possibility in the near future. Time will tell.
Bear in mind there is minimal effort for Adobe to continue support for a proprietary format if a manufacturer goes out of business. If Adobe re-engineers their develop processes, generally they maintain the old process versions, so they could do a new develop process and not carry along product X, you just forever use the last version for product X. You can look out there and see all the versions still there.

Only if Adobe refactors the overall code (like a port to a new platform) and has to re-do all manufacturers would they really need to make a decision "should we drop X".

Or of course if Adobe goes under, or drops lightroom; but it's not clear DNG really survives that either. While there are a ton of white papers out there espousing the future-proof nature of DNG, the vast majority are either written by Adobe, or by Adobe fans basically copying Adobe word in their blogs. DNG is not like Adobe adopted some organically grown industry standard to be "open". It's Adobe DNG (even if they gave away license rights). Adobe is the leading promoter of it still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top