Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/content/60/9972860/html/smf/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Latest posts of: JoeThePhotographer
The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 11, 2020, 06:14:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28033 Posts in 5147 Topics by 2904 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
16  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Re: Blu Ray media prices on: February 09, 2011, 06:20:33 AM
I've been buying the Memorex - I see them now on Amazon for under $3

So far, I have been doing a data validation for each disc I burn, and checking them periodically. No errors yet, but it has only been a year. (Process described in a movie on the dpBestflow site:

They are now less than $2 at Amazon but get poor reviews.  I wonder what your experience has been with them.

17  DAM Stuff / DNG / Back to the drawing board? on: February 09, 2011, 06:07:41 AM
I did some experiments and found a few interesting things:

(1) Converting JPG to DNG increases their size greatly.  From 2 Meg to 10 Meg, for example.  I knew there would be an increase but did not know how much.  This does not seem like a good option, especially since metadata can be written directly to JPG (though I was hoping to take advantage of hash validation).  Luckily, I don't shoot jpg any more.

On to the problem with Virtual Copies:

(2) Exporting Virtual Copies from LR3 creates one DNG file for each Virtual Copy.

(3) There is no other way of letting Bridge or ACR recognize virtual copies.  If you have virtual copies in LR catalogue, you can write virtual copy to disk ("Update DNG Previews and Metada") but only one of the Virtual Copies will be written to disk.  Neither xmp nor DNG format accomodates more than one virtual copy.  The only way to share virtual copies with Bridge/ACR is to create additional DNGs by "Exporting to DNG".

Other observations/issues:

(4) DNG metadata does not get automatically written to choose either "Save Metadata to File" or "Update DNG Previews and Metada".  Not sure exactly what the difference is.  But the big question is: does the metadata continue to live in the LR catalogue or not?  If not that is a problem because I regularly bakup the catalogue but I never backup photos after initial importation and archiving.

(5) Converting a TIFF to DNG, at least in one case, reduced its size considerably.  This might be a good option for scanned photos.
18  DAM Stuff / DNG / Best way to confert RAW files to DNG: Use LR or Adobe Coverter on: February 08, 2011, 10:55:29 AM
What is the best procedure for converting existing library (RAW and possibly JPG and TIFF) to DNG?  Should I create xmps and then use the standalone converter, or should I convert from within LR?

I would like the settings and metadata which exist in the LR catalogue to be saved into the DNG.  Is this possible for all settings, or are some things "left behind"?  How about virtual copies of one pic that exist in the LR catalogue--will all copies be included in the DNG?  Will LR and ACR always know what camera the photos originated from for the purpose of applying proper camera-specific settings?

19  DAM Stuff / DNG / Re: Why NOT to use DNG on: February 08, 2011, 10:48:46 AM
According to the bpbestworkflow site the best way currently to verify DNGs is to run them through Adobe's DNG converter software which essentially re-converts them to DNG.  What benefit does this provide over just converting the original RAW files to DNG in order to verify them?  Seems that either way the source file is read and an error is reported if there is a problem.  How is DNG better here?

Look at the other page of, which states:

Keep in mind that just because a file can be opened and converted by the DNG Converter does not mean that the image data inside the file is problem-free. It's possible that the file structure is intact, but the image data is corrupted. For full validation of the image data, you'll want to save raw files as DNGs.
20  DAM Stuff / DNG / Re: Why NOT to use DNG on: February 08, 2011, 10:42:05 AM
Is this board active?

On the validation point, RAW to DNG conversion cannot validate whether the file has changed.  Maybe it can report whether the file is damaged; not sure about that.  But it certainly can't tell whether it has changed because no hash was ever created.  Once it's DNG hashes are created, so you can tell if even a single bit has changed in either the DNG or if you embed the RAW, the RAW portion as well.

As far as xmp, they're a major hassle.  I just deleted serveral thousand of them.  I have no idea what program created them or what they say, so I deleted them.  All the useful info about my files is stored in the LR catalogue, I think.

My only misgivings about DNG are that (1) I'm presuming the DNG converter discards some proprietary info present in the RAW file (right?) and (2) I don't think Microsoft supports DNG yet in its 64bit operating system (how does that bode for otehr software vendors supporting it?). 

Despite my misgivings, I am about to convert all of my raw files (from Nikon, Panasonic and Olympus cameras) because (i) xmp are such a major hassle, and I want all of my Adobe programs and LR catalogues to know what changes I've made to the file, (ii) validation is very underrated, once you have 100K + files, (iii) it's nice to save a bit of space.  My 2TB drive is quickly getting filled up with photos and video.

I think I might keep a RAW version (embedded in DNG) of my top, top files.  The 1% top eshelon of  keepers.
21  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Archival for the future: optical?? on: January 01, 2011, 07:10:27 AM
I've held off on building an optical archive of my photos and videos.  Given the size of raw video files and the need to "validate" and so on, I'd have to have a staff dedicated to maintining a blu ray library (and a sizable off-site cabinet to hold the disks).  Instead, I just download all of my raw files directly from the memory card to two hard drives (one internal and one external), and I periodically back-up to a third drive.  My "work-in-progess" files consist entirely of Lightroom catalogues and Premiere Pro projects, and few ancillary documents, which are pretty easy to back up and archive.  And my "derived" files are pretty small too--Jpgs and videos for upload.  Once in a while, I'll scan in a large-format (4x5) slide, which generates large TIFFs.

I realize that having a non-hard drive third copy would be safer than two or even three hard drives, but blu-ray just doesn't cut it due to size and reliability constraints.  Is there any other way to deal with this problem?

22  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Re: Which is faster 2.4GHz & 4 CPUs or 3.2Ghz & 2 CPUs on: January 01, 2011, 07:01:11 AM
Are you referring to multiple cores or multiple processors?

I'd go with a slower quad-core over a faster dual core because LR3 uses all cores.  Faster dual-core chips are probably good for gaming.

On the other hand, quadcore chips are not that expensive so there is no reason not to get at least 2.67 Ghz or faster quadcore.  I wouldn't get anything less than i7 if buying a desktop today.

If you are referring to multiple processors, then you probably know more about this stuff that me.  But that's not how I would spend my money unless someone else is paying. 

23  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom 3 is not faster on: August 11, 2010, 06:28:20 PM
I installed the LR3.2 RC, and no longer have any complaints about the speed.  They seem to have fixed it.

24  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom 3 is not faster on: August 11, 2010, 04:58:13 PM
Thanks Doug.  They really buried that one didn't they.

25  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Disposing of hard drives on: August 11, 2010, 06:27:11 AM
I was wondering how to dispose of my old hard drives in a responsible way without spending anything.  I have seven, ranging from 1 GB to 200 GB.  I know seven is not a huge number, but I still would prefer not throw them in the trash.  I have already wiped them clean using Truecrypt.

26  DAM Stuff / Hardware Discussions / Re: Inexpensive Blu Ray Media on: August 11, 2010, 06:24:43 AM

I supposed that means validaing all of your media at regular intervals, not just when you first burn it.  In that case, I am losing sight of how optical media can help me.  It would be faster and cheaper to have three hard drive backups.  Or is it the virus threat that makes optical media essential?

27  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom 3 is not faster on: August 09, 2010, 02:25:10 PM
I did optimize the catalogue; it has about 20,000 images.

By browsing I mean moving from image to image in Library by clickling on the mini image at the bottom.  It's not full res, because the monitor has a lower resolution than the camera.  I have not generated full res previews; I never did in LR2 either.

28  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Difficult question on: August 09, 2010, 02:21:30 PM
Is there a way to see the camera-generated preview in LR so that I can try to match it?
29  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Difficult question on: August 09, 2010, 10:59:33 AM
In both LR2 and LR3, a split second after I first open a RAW image for the first time, LR applies some settings and makes the image darker, among other things.

Now it often happens that I prefer the image before these changes are made, and would prefer to start working with the unaltered image.

I can't tell what changes are being applied.  As far as I can tell, I don't have any special default settings.

Is there any way I can tell LR not to mess with the image at all?

30  Software Discussions / Lightroom / Re: Lightroom 3 is not faster on: August 09, 2010, 10:54:49 AM

I just saw that you replied...

It is not a fresh catalogue.  When I installed LR3 it asked me whether I wanted to upgrade the LR2 catalogue and I chose yes.  Should I have approached this differently?  Is it too late? 

I did install and uninstall LR3 beta a while a go.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!