I don't quite get how this helps, or I'm misunderstanding what you mean by and attached rendering.

Assuming attached rendering = JPEG resulting from applying adjustment instructions (ie embedded preview), then all this can do is give me a target for attempting to recreate the adustments manually in another application, and perhaps allow printing by an application that understands how to extract the preview.

But as you said, instructions from ACR aren't understood by Aperture, so exactly how would I benefit from attaching an ACR rendering to a file and then editing that file in Aperture (or any other raw converter)?

--Jason Pringle

John -
I agree with your points, but (not knowing too much about the DNG spec) I would suspect that many of the processing instructions generated by these apps would only make sense to that app unless that "way of thinking about the image processing" became standard across image processing apps.  For example, how would one represent the effect of NX's control points in some portable manner?  However, I'd think things like whitepoint, overall exposure, etc should be generally portable across applications.

I'd settle for some intermediary "universal" format that the results of a set of instructions could be translated to, but typically wouldn't be used by an application otherwise.  Something like you could take a tweaked image and translate the app-specific instructions into an equivalent set of layers, filters and masks within a TIFF (for example).

I suppose another view one could take is the "do I really care" attitude - most photos will either be in a "virgin" state where it doesn't matter, or in an adjusted state where you probably only care about the resulting image and could save that as a TIFF/JPG/somefuturecooltype when ready to retire your application of choice.  If you were to reprocess that image years later you'd probably want to start over from scratch anyway with your new wiz-bang application.

So all these cool, non-destructive apps are starting to appear - even those that will handle JPGs (Lightview Lightzone, Capture NX, Lightroom). I'm excited by the possibility, but am also concerned about the future viability of images processed by such apps.  Even if a "neutral" file format were used (such as DNG), I doubt that the processing instructions from, say, Capture NX would be honored or even recognized by Lightroom or Lightview Lightzone.  So that means once you start making adjustments in that application, those (processed versions of) images are tied to it.

I suppose you could argue that doing edits in photoshop and saving as PSD is the same thing, but I expect some variant of PS to be around for quite some time (or have clear migration paths) as Adobe is a giant in the business.  I have no such faith in the smaller companies (it's a cutthroat market).

What thoughts do folks out there have on this topic?

--Jason

I'll re-read the relevant sections in the book tonight, but today I was diagramming out the flow of files from camera ingestion to final product, and I got a bit confused as to how to handle some of the offline media backups.

At this point I don't shoot raw (not a well supported format for my camera), so the workflow has been simplified for JPG-only. However, I expect the same issue would apply to the workflow Peter lays out once you've got your DNGs into the catalog app.

1. Import from camera to disk, rename (on-the--fly or separate step, doesn't matter), put into bucket RAW_0001
2. Make backup of bucket to external drive
3. Import into iView, do some keywording and create virtual sets
4. Repeat until bucket is full
... (time passes)
5. Burn bucket to CD/DVD

Ok, so far so good.  But now what do I do if I add more keywords to photos that are in buckets that have been burned to offline media?  Do I re-burn an entire bucket, even if only some of the files within it have had keywords added?  Is there some threshold?

Or do I rely on mirror backups of the mainline buckets to keep my metadata safe?  Then it seems there's a gap between the online backup and the offline backup - if both should fail catestrophically and I only have the offline backup, I've lost any metadata added since the bucket was burned (which is controlled by shooting volume).

A parallel question for the master/derivatives "branch" of buckets. You'll burn those off to CD/DVD once you've got enough in the bucket, but if you revisit and edit files that are in buckets that have been burned do you re-burn the bucket? Do you duplicate the file into the current bucket and only work on that one going forward?

--Jason

Thanks for the pointer - looks like we're dealing with many of the same issues.  I also read your other threads - I had the same questions about JPG->DNG

Hmm, interesting approach. I'm thinking there must be a way to do this with embedding some metadata (could be priviate or synced to the files) similar to how Peter prescribes copying the star ratings from Bridge into the cataloging s/w.  So defining a set of tags (original, master, derivative_x, etc) that would be added appropriately to each "version", and also assigning the same set of metadata as the originals.  Then you can filter your catalog searches to something like "show me all the family photos and include those that are marked as original and master" and "show me all the family photos and limit to originals" and "show me all the family photos and limit to masters".  Thinking out loud here...instead of "master" (or in addition to) define a tag "active" or "current" which denotes the given file as the current of a version set.  Initially gets applied to all file upon ingestion into the catalog tool. When creating any sort of new version (master, DNG conversion, whatever) "move" the tag to the new version. Then you should be able to filter views / sets / queries based on what is your "current" version of every file in the result set.


I'm a bit reluctant to continue making further edits as all saves to JPGs are destructive to some degree. If I used the "active" tag idea above, then less concern as I could always go back to the original if I wanted to spend some additional effort on a file.

I'm on a Mac, so some of the tool options are a bit limited.  I'm excited by Lightroom (can't check out the beta because I'm not yet on Tiger, which is required) and the idea of non-destructive edits to JPGs. Wish I knew when it would be out - I'd really hate to drop $200 on iView only to be ready to dump it for Lightroom 3-6 months later.  I've hobbled along for 2 years waiting for the perfect app and could hobble for a few months more, but would be really irritated to hobble for a whole year.

I think the "perfect" cataloging app would be a simple "dashboard" based on an open database (like mySQL etc) for meta-data storage and the file system for virtual sets (creating and managing softlinks/aliases). Then you could browse your virtual sets in other applications easily (like printing apps) just using the file system, and other tools could integrate with the metadata w/o having to sync to the files themselves (but you should still have that option if you would like). The main "value-adds" of the cataloging app would be 1) easy interface for managing/editing metadata (multiple selection, drag-drop assignment, etc) 2) great browsing experience (light tables for in/out comparisons, variable thumbnails, etc) 3) great search experience 4) version support for "file sets".

--Jason

I'm strictly an amature shooter, mostly family stuff.  But I do manage to accumulate a fair number of images.

At the current time I don't shoot RAW (my CP5000 has a .NEF mode, but it's horribly SLOW).  So I'm trying to get a good handle on how to manage the JPGs as they move through the process.  I have read Peter's book, and trolled these forums a bit.

Since the original is a JPG, there are (currently) no good options for non-destructive edits w/o transforming to a .PSD.  Assuming I follow a modified flow as outlined by Peter, I'd download the JPGs from camera into buckets and then import directly into iView (or other cataloging app, but for Mac that seems to be pretty much iView) for rating/keywording/cataloging. So far, so good.

Almost all of my prints are simply 4x6/5x7/8x10 for family output, done on a personal inkjet.  The audience isn't too picky, but I tend to be

Once I've identified a set to be printed, I'll need to perform some amount of corrections (levels, sharpening, some times white balance adj, etc). This would be, I assume, a "master" file and saved as a PSD with layers intact so as to avoid JPG recompression and allow re-tweaking later if needed.

Q1 - How do I link the "master" file back to the original?  I assume for general catalog browsing I'd still be looking at the as-shot vs the tweaked?  Or does the master become the "browsed" image in the catalog (something like version stacks would be sooo cool here!)?  Do I need to sync over all the annotations?  What about catalog sets etc?

Q2 - I'd probably end up saving the output derivatives (4x6 crops for printing, or web gallery downsamples for example) just to avoid having to recreate them from the master. Same catalog management question - how do I relate them to the master or the orig?  Should meta-data by synced over?

Q3 - What if I found out that a simple correction made in iView worked for me (basic red-eye removal and auto-enhance)? In this case I could skip the "master" file and treat the output as a print-derivative.  Same questions as to how to relate back to original.

Q4 - Non-DAM related - any suggestions on a "standard" set of adjustments that can easily be applied to JPGs via PSE or PS (kind of like the auto adjustments in ACR)?  Again, audience isn't that picky but "standard" sharpening and levels adjustments would be nice to speed things up.

Thanks!

--Jason