13 Replies Latest reply: Jun 20, 2012 11:58 PM by Lundberg02 RSS

    Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)

    Noel Carboni Community Member

      I've had a feature request open for some time over on the Photoshop.com site.  It's garnered some support, but apparently not enough to be high on the developers' priority list.

       

      Basically, I'm asking that an option be added to Camera Raw (and Lightroom) that would cause development settings to NEVER be saved in an input file, but ALWAYS in a sidecar XMP file or the central database.  Basically I'd like it to work for ALL files the way it does now for file types Camera Raw doesn't feel "comfortable" in writing back to, such as CR2s and NEFs.

       

      http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/add_an_option_to_prevent_writing_bac k_into_input_files

       

      If you'd like to see a configurable option that would keep the software from writing back into your original input files (e.g., .JPG, .DNG), please follow the above link and add your vote to the thread.

       

      Thanks!

       

      -Noel

        • 1. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
          JJMack CommunityMVP

          Basically If ACR Saves an output Image file like a jpeg image or open the conversion in Photoshop the RAW conversion setting are written to the jpeg metadata by ACR or passed to Photoshop as document metadata and Photoshop may additionally save this metadata with output image file. ACR setting are also Saved in different places depending on file types and options. If the input file is a non standard RAW file they are saved in either the ACR database or in sidecar files in the same folder as the non standard RAW file.   For Stand File types like Adobe DGN Raw, Tiff, Jpeg they are saved as metadata in the input file and become one with the original even if no output image file is saved as when you use ACR done button. Seems better then sidecar files and ACR database they can become lost an additional point of failure.  I would suggest perhaps it would be better to do away with the ACR database and ACR sidecar files in favor of keeping the latest conversion setting in all original files.  Just a thought....to bust your brain and make you think about it..

          • 2. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
            Noel Carboni Community Member

            It would be cool if that were possible - but some of the formats are simply undocumented, and Adobe doesn't dare make things up.  Who knows whether a Canon CR2 file would be usable by Canon conversion software after Adobe has written some extra stuff into it.

             

            But you make my point in a way, by calling for consistency...  I'd just like to be able to select consistency all the other way.

             

            -Noel

            • 3. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
              CameraAnn Community Member

              JJMack wrote:

               

              I would suggest perhaps it would be better to do away with the ACR database and ACR sidecar files in favor of keeping the latest conversion setting in all original files.  Just a thought....to bust your brain and make you think about it..

               

              I sincerely hope that that will never be allowed to happen: the potential for destroying an irreplaceable RAW file by over-writing, and very possibly corrupting, the original data would be immense.

               

              Personally, I prefer to use a Central Database (backed-up  regularly in several places) rather than .xmp sidecars.

               

              I am also fairly certain that having sidecars in the same folder as my .nefs slows Bridge down considerably and corrupts it's database rather easily as well.

               

              That happened due to an inadvertent change in my Prefs on one occasion and Bridge became distinctly sluggish until I trashed all the .xmp files and re-converted every image that had been affected.

              • 4. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                Noel Carboni Community Member

                Yeah, I'm a central databaser myself as well.  If you think about it it's an extension of my philosophy in that I don't even want Adobe software writing anything back into my original file folders either.

                 

                With 36 years of software engineering under my belt I've found - for me - the philosophies that work best.  But I'm not proposing changes that will force others to do anything different.  I'd just like options.

                 

                -Noel

                • 5. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                  JJMack CommunityMVP

                  CameraAnn wrote:

                   

                  I sincerely hope that that will never be allowed to happen: the potential for destroying an irreplaceable RAW file by over-writing, and very possibly corrupting, the original data would be immense.

                   

                  Personally, I prefer to use a Central Database (backed-up  regularly in several places) rather than .xmp sidecars.

                   

                  Then don't use LR or the Bridge they update RAW files Metadata all the time.  They do not however change RAW data or Image data they preserve the original data. A databas or sidecar file can be lost you still may have the RAW or Image file but you settings are lost. If your settings are in the Image File or RAW file you have both image and settings. If you loose the raw or image file if you dont have backup you lost the image having its RAW covcersioin settings in a sidecar file or database does you no good at all.

                  • 6. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                    Noel Carboni Community Member

                    I think it's funny that you, who have many criticisms of Adobe's quality, believe that "They do not however change RAW data or Image data they preserve the original data".

                     

                    JJ, you've been around the forum long enough to know how many hundreds of people have reported file corruption by Adobe software.  Would you bet hard currency that they always "preserve the original data"?

                     

                    And what's the general obsession with the importance of development settings and preserving them?  Sheesh, it's not like you can't start over from scratch and get a decent conversion again in about 30 seconds!

                     

                    -Noel

                    • 7. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                      JJMack CommunityMVP

                      Its very hard to get Adobe to acknwlege they have a bug though many report bugs some of which I have verifyed are indeed bugs.  I read most bug reprted, yet  I can't recall seeing any about raw data curuption or loosing raw file because of an Adobe bugs. Still I'm no fool and keep untouched Camera files I feel these are good as  gold worth saving. You should never work on these work only on copies should you loose you work you can start over again with a new copy. You will do a better job the second time around if it an important image anyway..  I want information about the image to accumulate in my work image files. Including RAW settings.  Seldom have I needed to start over...

                      • 8. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                        Noel Carboni Community Member

                        It's good that there are so many different ways of working.

                         

                        What's interesting is that philosophically we seem to approach things exactly the same:  Neither of us want our original images re-written.  You make a complete copy and work on that, allowing the development information to accumulate in the files (which is what Adobe expects you to do with the DNG converter), while I prefer to open the original raw file and have the development information to accumulate elsewhere.  Of course I have (multiple) backups of all the original files.

                         

                        -Noel

                        • 9. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                          station_two Community Member

                          The late Bruce Fraser once wrote that he, personally, thought that keeping the metadata in a central database is "madness" (or he may have used "insane").  I agree with that.

                           

                          For one thing, you have to remember to export the cache every single time you move or copy a file.

                           

                          Honestly, I don't see the problems some see with XMP files.

                          • 10. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                            Chris Cox Adobe Employee

                            And keeping all the development data in the cache makes it a single point of failure, as opposed to sidecar files or in the file.

                            (I think that's what Bruce was referring to, though I heard him call many things stupid or insane :-)

                            • 11. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                              Noel Carboni Community Member

                              That's why it's good to have options.

                               

                              Not to put too fine a point on your (Bruce's) choice of wording, but some might say using that other kind of computer is madness or insane, but not me, noooo.  I'm glad we have options. 

                               

                              -Noel

                              • 12. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                                JJMack CommunityMVP

                                The thing  is I want applications to take advantage of the image informational data when its in a standard matadata format like EXIF, ITPC etc. in image files. Why should an applications have to know anything about some library system like LR the bridge or any other orginizer you might be using or require customised information from you about image.  Keeping image information within the image file is the best option IMO.  Application can add it and use it or provide you with optons for using the imformation in its processing that has been added to the image file from as many applications you may have used on the file.

                                • 13. Re: Bald Faced Solicitation for Votes :)
                                  Lundberg02 Community Member

                                  Is CameraAnn  our own Ann S back at last?