Add an option to PhotoLab to turn the database functions on or off

Supercharge Adobe Lightroom Classic® & Photoshop® with Nik Collection 5

Did you also get that mail? I would not be too surprised if DxO sells DeepPrime to Adobe and closes down PL.

PM is useless as long as it doesn’t show my edits on a RAW without needing an exported JPG. And since PM can’t use a couple of DxO’s RAW editing features, it’s useless for me. I don’t use DNG as I don’t tend to hoard multiple file formats of the same image. Having double size files doesn’t make anything better, only weaker. I will never convert a native RAW to DNG - man, this forum is full of problems with that way! You DxO fans always love your workarounds and triple apps for one image - I live better without them.

Makes me thinking of good old CaptureNx. MetadataIPTC and XMP, was stored in the Raw file and the embedded JPG was replaced by a new one. How comfortable was that!!

George

From a time when 6 MP were “high resolution”, right? :grinning:

DNG was introduced in 2004. One might wonder: 18 years later it still hasn’t fulfilled it’s weird promise to be a RAW format for all manufacturers, the “one ring to rule them all”, although for a couple of smaller and these days not very significant manufacturers like Leica, Pentax, Sigma, Ricoh. Bringing competing companies on one table to develop a common RAW format is like asking Microsoft to become OpenSource. IF DNG is a good thing or not is an ongoing discussion ever since. And if an idea like that doens’r fly from the beginning it’s very unlikely it will change with age. Adobe wanted just another cash-cow.

Nikon is still embedding a full size jpg. When finished editing it was replaced by a new one based on the edits. IPTC and XMP are small additives. But it would solve a lot of the problems one is dealing with when using a DAM.
I still add keywords direct to the RAW file using ViewNx.

George

I doubt so. Previews which are not embedded are faster to read and cull through, although I admit I never tested that, so I cannot state how much faster or if thta’s still the case. But I remember a DAM I could choose wether I want to use the embedded JPGs (if available) or the ones produced during import. At that time, recommendation of Apple or Capture One was "let the DAM do the job and put these previews in the DAMs database.

With a little bit of thinking it’s pretty obvious: Previews in C1 are 5K max. - smaller than 100% which are useless above 15 MP. And while editing, C1 renders the RAW. I need a fast preview to organize, not the clunky endresult.

@JoJu
DNG is a wonderful fileformat especially in DAM-environment. Many museums an other cultural heritage institutions like museums have standardised on DNG and don´t use RAW at all in their workflows. I worked in environments like that för seven years and saw no problems at all.

I had some problems loosing data before 2010 with compressed RAW and black areas in photos which just diasappeared but that is history since many years.

In the handling of DNG many others has a few things to learn from Adobe and Lightroom. It´s not the DNG format itself that usually has been the problem. It´s the implementation of i in the software.

@George
No serious software developers treats JPEG:s like that anymore.

Well it can be very comfortable just to write metadata into the RAW-files. Sony-cameras are doing just that and to understand how beneficial that can be can just try Sonys own maybe to long overlooked RAW-converter Imaging Edge.

The advantage is that since Sony stores even the camera settings into the RAW-files just that gives a natural starting point that gets synced with how the camera was set for it´s built in JPEG rendering. In other words, you get the same starting point when opening a RAW in Imaging Edge as the JPEG:s look right out of the camera.

If you open a Sony RAW in Photolab or Camera RAW you have to reinvent the weel once again or you have to start with another starting point DXO think you shall use instead - usually a more inefficient workflow. Read the article. I´m not completely on my own having discovered this phenomenon.

Adobe Camera Raw vs. Sony Imaging Edge Desktop: Which is your best bet?: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

I first was tempted to reply “but I’m no museum!”. At second thought, it depends very much on “how important do I consider archivability?” That’s also a bit of a philosophical question about legacy. My own life, my views might be important for me - but as smartphone users fill their clouds in an endless flow of terabytes per day, I’m sure there’s more than enough material for upcoming generations of archaelogists.

PDF became a better archival format after Adobe transferred it to PDF Association and PDF was defined by ISO standard 32000, although they developed and introduced it 1992. I strictly don’t trust a greedy company like Adobe who feel more obliged to shareholders than to their customers. I’ve seen the difference in diskspace and RAW quality and although I agree with you (it depends on the camera company’s implementation), both interests of camera companies and Adobe as licence seller clash together. Not to the benefit of the customers.

That’s with all camera brands. They all store the camera settings in the exif.

I don’t understand why a museum would use DNG’s. A DNG isn’t a end-product yet. Unless you refer to a development situation.

George