So, I got back from New York with the kids and discovered that all my images are jpg's. I let my kids take pictures with the "big camera" because every kid should be comfortable with manual focusing, aperture sizes, shutter speeds. But they are kids... The camera was accidentally set to take jpgs instead of RAW, and thats what we came home with (no client photos effected).
My question is, should I convert the jpg's to dng? Lightroom only applies settings to an image, and saves out a flattened version of that image. So as long as I don't save over the "original" jpg's I won't loose any *more* quality, right? OR, does "Save metadata to file", which is Develop as well as Library settings, re jpg the jpg? With jpg is it sidecar, or recompress when it comes to saving LR settings?
I've googled it and looked around here, and most seem to think that it's a waste of space to convert to dng, the image was compressed in-camera the very second it saved as jpg, and that's that. But a few seem to think that converting to dng is a layer of protection. Plus I don't want to loose the metadata...
I would keep them as JPGs.
My primary concern would be organizational: once you convert to DNG you cannot tell by looking at the extension whether they are raw or JPG, and you’d have to open each file to see what kind it is.
XMP data will be added to the JPG but the pixel data remains the same and doesn’t recompress, unless of course you save over the top of it, somehow. If you’re used to saving over your JPGs out of habit then it might be worth making a ZIP of all these specific JPGs before you do anything, just so you have a backup in case accidentally overwrite one of your master photos.
XMP data will be added to the JPG but the pixel data remains the same and doesn’t recompress
-- thanks for the reassurance!