But I would then have the original RAW, plus the DNG, thus more than doubling up on storage.
Last edited:
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute
Microsoft One Drive
- Thread starter John King
- Start date
If you convert to DNG you still maintain the original RAW but have the benefit of only one file to manage
So, would you throw away your negatives?
Last edited:
you are not throwing away your Raw file, you are just placing it inside the DNG wrapper which houses both your original RAW and the sidecar file but only leaves you with a single file to move around
I don't use Lightroom! I never could get on with it, and I have very little clogging up the works. Once I have decided I don't need them,
they are as good as toast
What are sidecars photographically speaking? To me they are things you attach to a motorcycle abominable things - sidecars that is, they take the fun out of riding a motorcycle
I realise you don't like DxO but you may not realise that the DOP sidecar can contain the editing parameters for multiple versions.
If I use Lightroom (never going to happen) to create multiple versions, presumably stored in a DNG, how would I access those multiple versions from PhotoLab?
Last edited:
Asking for a friend ?
Did I read DxO Photolab somewhere?!
I thought a sidecar was something bolted onto the side of a motorbike.
I thought a sidecar was something bolted onto the side of a motorbike.
You'll upset the Entente Cordiale !
Do you know something? I didn't realise that this group was sponsored by Adobe and only their tools could be discussed
If you guys want to continue paying a subscription every year and put up with inferior tools, knock yourselves out.
But, when the subject is the difference between file formats and disk space, it would be really nice if those who start to discuss the subject were willing to put aside their prejudices and continue such a discussion.
I'm no fan of Adobe, and I'm not keen on motorbikes either!
Oh, I didn't see that you're not a sidecar fan either, sorry!
I too tried LR some years ago, I couldn't get my head round it at all. I think my brain sort of shuts down with any new IT. In truth can barely use Photoshop, I can just about manage, probably very inefficiently, to use a tiny bit of it, and it bores me. I hate it's post-subscription incarnations, and I use the oldest version available.
I remain spellbound by the physical darkroom. I wish I had more time to spend in it.
A brief re-read of the post will remind you of the first mention of s/w used for image processing, mean whileDo you know something? I didn't realise that this group was sponsored by Adobe and only their tools could be discussed
If you guys want to continue paying a subscription every year and put up with inferior tools, knock yourselves out.
But, when the subject is the difference between file formats and disk space, it would be really nice if those who start to discuss the subject were willing to put aside their prejudices and continue such a discussion.
William Adobe Pitt & Napoléon Dxo Bonaparte ......
Can't see San Jose on that globe, but history gives us a lesson here
In what way are they inferior
I do detect a trace of sour grapes here and what alternative is there when they are using what must be the most popular digital processing software with almost endless possibilities Each to their own. Just because I don't like the idea of electric cars, How people want to spend their cash should not be up for comment.Do you know something? I didn't realise that this group was sponsored by Adobe and only their tools could be discussed
If you guys want to continue paying a subscription every year and put up with inferior tools, knock yourselves out.
But, when the subject is the difference between file formats and disk space, it would be really nice if those who start to discuss the subject were willing to put aside their prejudices and continue such a discussion.
Adobe is still playing catchup with DxO when it comes to noise reduction. DeepPRIME has evolved a lot since its first introduction. Adobe have attempted to rival it but, according to many reviewers is still not there yet.
With DxO, you get to preview denoising , which takes no time at all and is visible from within the loupe tool. It is only ever written out when exporting a final copy, thus saving a lot of time whilst editing.
DxO test real lenses and bodies to create their own, very precise, lens modules, whereas Adobe's tend to be created from manufacturers data.
Adobe makes use of a catalogue, which has to be imported into, whereas DxO simply reads from the file system and saves edits in a database and/or proprietary sidecar files. Files with sidecars can be transferred to another computer just by simply copying or moving them in the file system.
There is much more and there are plenty of comparisons on the internet.
But it cannot compete with Analogue!
Who really cares who or what is done to make the end product that they are offering. My end offering is a print which has been done without outside assistance apart from them making the materials I use. Very much the same as a bricklayer uses someone else's sand, cement and bricks but his expertise at putting them together to make a wall etc.
Who really cares who or what is done to make the end product that they are offering. My end offering is a print which has been done without outside assistance apart from them making the materials I use. Very much the same as a bricklayer uses someone else's sand, cement and bricks but his expertise at putting them together to make a wall etc.
Last edited: