You can delete the XMP’s (LR should do this for you if you use it to update to DNG) but I think you should keep the Auto Save XMP on as this will still work to update the data within the DNG.

Then there is the Update DNG Previews & Metadata command which is a bit different. It updates more data (embeds DNG profiles which could be useful, a rendered version of a JPEG based on the size you set in preferences etc). It updates the entire DNG! Even if it didn’t need to be updated, meaning it forces a full update even if nothing was new. This could be useful if you wanted to use the DNG outside of LR such that the other application would have access to that preview and some additional metadata. This will cause your next backup to be a lot longer naturally.

At the very least, I’d have the Auto XMP on so that you do update the edits within the DNG. It is usually pretty fast.

richardplondon wrote:

 

...you will need to keep this "write to XMP" checkbox active...

Or save xmp manually, assuming you do want xmp in your DNGs, which is what I do. Lr4 keeps a collection of files whose xmp is out of date, making this approach very straight forward.

3 kinds of people in the world:

* those who like auto-write xmp. Recommended for novices and/or people who prefer not to think about it.

* those who prefer saving xmp manually. Recommended for control freaks, and people who use plugins that demand it.

* those who prefer no xmp (settings in catalog only). Not recommended, unless you know what you're doing.

Rob

Andrew Rodney wrote:

 

...his...

The OP may be female.

Andrew,

I think you are absolutely right. If OP is to continue automatically saving xmp, then the checkbox for that option MUST remain checked!

This requirement is not dependent on gender, obviously.

Please accept my apology.

Rob

WDKlein1000,

It was not my intent to try and change your mind, nor to imply that the need to keep auto-write XMP on (in order to satisfy original objective, automatically) was wrong (since it's not).

My aim was to inform:

Now that Lr4 has a collection of files that need metadata saved, it is a more viable option to save metadata manually than it was previously, and would also satisfy original objective, even if not automatically.

More info: Converted DNGs (especially v1.4) are not as compatible with non-Adobe software as proprietary raws. In fact, even some Adobe software still does not support v1.4 DNGs (but probably will soon). Again, not trying to change your mind, just trying to inform...

PS - The content of this reply, like many replies, is not only for the benefit of the OP, but other readers as well.

Rob

DdeGannes wrote:

 

I do not see the need for an argument or disagreement, as far as I am concerned "Auto write to xmp" is an option which serves a valid purpose.

The valid purpose for me is not to rely on this somewhat important data solely be stored in a proprietary database file (the LR database). In terms of data, I’m a belt and suspenders kind of guy. The data doesn’t take up much space so I’d prefer to have it within the DNG and within LR.

In version 1.X of LR, this setting slowed down performance to the degree that many had to turn it off. That was fixed and at least on a fairly modern machine, the speed hit if any isn’t something I recognize.

And as I wrote above, the Update DNG Previews & Metadata command is something folks like myself who want even more data stored in the DNG might consider. For example, if you build more than a few custom DNG profiles, having them embedded into the DNG means that should the DNG profile go missing, or you don’t want to store image specific profiles you will likely not use in the future, LR will not revert to another DNG profile because it is contained within the container. Having a rendered JPEG of high quality within the DNG means that in a pinch, I could at least get to that data if necessary.

My choice is not to use xmp and if I need a Lightroom processed file to be sent to Photoshop or another program for further processing I do so using a tiff file. I have absolutely no interest in using ACR for processing RAW files, just my choice.

The one case this might be useful is for embedding the raw inside a smart object. But I agree, if you use LR solely for raw processing, you probably have no need for ACR. Just render a TIFF to hand off to Photoshop.

WDKlein1000 wrote:

 

I think I've got this straight.  My goal is to keep the xmp data with the image file (embedded into the file in the case of dng files) as well as in the Lr catalog.  I still need to auto (or manually) save xmp files in order for Lr to save the xmp data internally to the dng file.  Right?

Perfectly right.

WDKlein1000 wrote:

 

I've been converting to dng after I have done my initial Lr processing of the raw files and the sidecar files have already been produced.  When I convert to dng, the side car files aren't automatically deleted.

I *think* if you say: do not delete previous raw, it keeps both xmp and original raw files. However, if you say: delete original raws upon conversion, it will delete both raw files and xmp sidecars. In other words, they are treated as a unit. So I suspect your raw files are not being deleted either, right? Note: if this is the case, then whenever you sync your folders, it's gonna wanna pull in all the original raws again. If it were me, rather than deleteing the xmp and leaving the sibling raws, I'd move both to a backup.

WDKlein1000 wrote:

 

I wonder if the sidecar files would ever be produced if I imported with the option to convert to dng and then wouldn't ever be editting the raw files?

They would not. If you know you are going to prefer DNG, it seems prudent to convert upon import.

WDKlein1000 wrote:

 

I know the sidecar files are relatively small, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to go back and delete them once the xmp data is embeded in the dng files.  Right?

Right again - delete away...

UPDATE: I didn't see AR's previous post when I wrote this, sorry for redundancy.

Rob

WDKlein1000 wrote:

I was using Jullieanne's advice in her video on dng and converting to dng after importing (and editing) in order to save some time, but I think I will start to converting directly on import if it will preclude building sidecars.

I would. You’ll have to convert sooner or later. Now if you import 100 images without converting, then toss 50, OK you waited for 50 to convert just to throw them away. But I don’t find the conversion a significant speed hit. The import process with decent number of images takes long enough where I just go off and do other tasks anyway. If you do convert on import, there will absolutely be no sidecar files.