Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Looking Ahead

Feb 22, 2012 11:57 AM

Now I import my files from my memory card into LR3 (with a DNG conversion).  Then I Import copies into LR4 Beta; the files have a "-2" after the file number.  Then I do whatever in LR4 Beta.  My question is, do I need to convert work I want to save into a TIFF file and import that TIFF file into LR3? or, can I expect the work to move seamlessly into the operational version of LR4 (along with what is now in LR3)?

 

Also, if I create a TIFF file in LR4 and import it back to LR3, when I download the operational version of LR4, will I end up with duplicate files in the operational version of LR4?

 

One more thing.  In LR4 Beta, I create a Virtual Copy of the -2.dng file.  Then I do whatever work I want to do in LR4, plus whatever work I want to do in addition in CS5.  If I go to CS5, I automatically end up with a TIFF file.  If I don't go to CS5, I create a TIFF file, mainly because I want the stable TIFF file which should not be subject to the vagaries of Beta.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 12:40 PM   in reply to JACK LARSON

    JACK LARSON wrote:

     

    My question is, do I need to convert work I want to save into a TIFF file and import that TIFF file into LR3? or, can I expect the work to move seamlessly into the operational version of LR4 (along with what is now in LR3)?

     

    Define "seamlessly"...when LR 4 ships, it will be able to update your LR4 beta catalog. Note that some of the settings in the Develop module may have been tweaked between the beta and GM release. So, it's quite possible that some images' appearance may change a tiny bit.

     

    Personally, I wouldn't bother exporting from LR4 as TIFFs back into LR3. You'll also be able to upgrade your LR 3 catalog to LR 4 when it ships.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 2:23 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    I am no longer so sure I was smart either with my way of testing LR4b:

    As it is recommended not to use the Beta on original files, as it could mess up with xmp data, but on copies,

    I decided to make use of copies which I already have as backup of my originals.

    The originals are on one NAS, the backups on another, created by file synchronisation software.

    LR3 points to the first NAS, LR4b to the other.

     

    With final release of 4 I plan to upgrade first my 3-master catalog. Then my 4beta-catalog, which I think I would import into the upgraded master.

    But then I no longer want any part point to the backup-NAS.

    Seamless integration for me would mean that I get a virtual copy of the former 4beta-part in case I have a record already from 3-master catalog.

    Will it be sufficient if I repoint my 4beta-catalog form backup-NAS to original-NAS before importing, so that the duplicates would be detected as such and I can choose "create virtual copy" ?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 2:33 PM   in reply to Cornelia-I

    That sounds correct to me, Cornelia.

     

    Note that the Virtual Copy (if chosen so) will be built for the already present version, and the imported version will be the master afterwards.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 2:41 PM   in reply to JACK LARSON

    What do you use the TIFF files for?

    If I go to PS5 I have a PSD file afterwards in addition to my DNG, which bothers me already, but can't be helped to store layers.

     

    But LR just contains a set of instructions how to interpret a file, LR4beta as well as LR3.

    So you need not double any file.

    If you want belt and braces, so that the file itsself knows as much as possible about this interpretation record (and could tell it to other software), save it to metadata/xmp, but do so only from one source - the non-beta source obviously.

     

     

    In my opinion it is one of the best seling points of LR: it is not forcibly a raw CONVERTER, leading to redundant big file data, but adding only tiny interpretation records to my longterm archival needs.

    Any form of rendered output I delete after use, as it is much cheaper to render it again should the need arise.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 2:43 PM   in reply to b_gossweiler

    Good to know, Beat !

    I would have credited the wrong source for the respective result...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2012 2:58 PM   in reply to JACK LARSON

    Then I am a bit puzzled why you decided for DNG conversion.

    Sticking with original proprietary Raw format would give you sidecar files for the xmp-part. So you would not need to confide into the DNG construction of having an xmp-room inside that is still strictly separate from your original raw data in DNG. DNG is a container and I rely on that.

    There are others opting for sidecar files for DNG as well, if they only could...

     

    But as storage needs are not an issue for you, why not creating another even larger TIFF in addition to a DNG?

    My yearly increment is too big for me to afford that longterm.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points