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.
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" ?
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.
Because I feel insecure with a Virtual Copy in LR4 Beta coming into the operational version, I have decided to create TIFF files of all Virtual Copy files where what I have done is important to me. I choose to do it this way rather than Syncing the work into the original file because in principle, I don't touch original files.
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.