Convert to DNG on Auto Import?

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there a way to convert RAW images to DNG during Auto Import?  It would speed up my workflow it there were a way to do it. 
Thank you.

John,
I can't speak for the original poster, but it would speed up my workflow considerably.  To get my RAW photos into my LR Catalog and a copy of the original into a backup directory manual import is less complicated, faster, and can be accomplished without leaving LR
Without Auto Import:
1. Start Lightroom
2. File-->Import photos from Disk
3. Select folder "Camera Import"
4. [Import All folders in Selected Folder]
5. [Import]
5 clicks 0 keystrokes
With Auto Import:
1. Start Lightroom {Auto Import occurs}
2. Ctrl-A (Selects all imported photos)
3. Library-->Convert Photos to DNG
4. [OK]
5. Start-->filesearch "*.cr2 in Folder Pictures"
6. Advanced Search-->Location-->Choose Search Directory-->DefaultUser-->Pictures-->Lightroom
7. [Search]
8. Ctrl-A (Select all), Cut
9. Start-->Pictures-->Backup Directory-->Paste
21 clicks 9 Keystrokes
bwalkerinc, I haven't found anything on the "Import" tab in Preferences that will force DNG conversion on Auto Import.  My photos still Auto Import in their original format regardless of any changes made there.

Similar Messages

  • Can I import raws w/o converting to DNG?

    I notice that my imports to LR are converted to DNG's and when I edit them they DON'T stay in original form----how can I retain the original file?
    Stack?

    Jao,
    But I assumed that Jim did want to convert his raw files to DNG, and also to retain the original raw file. If he does not need to convert to DNG then just import them as you said.
    Jim,
    the "Import Photos Screen" is shown when you have selected photos during import. (ctrl-shift-I) to get you to "Import photos or Lightroom Catalog" screen. Select files, click Open and now you are shown the "Import Photos Screen". (by the way, Adobe's DNG converter allows you to extract the original raw file from DNG also; so you may be able to use it to get back your original raws from those already converted to dng).

  • Can't convert to dng

    With my installation of Bridge its not possible to convert into dng while importing RAW-files.
    Do I have to instal something? But where? The DNG-Converter is still in the Bridge directory.
    Thanks for Help
    Hubert

    Jim,
    the standalone converter (4.3.1)works well on my Nikon D3 and D300. The problem is, that the option "convert to dng" in the import dialog of Bridge is greyed out. I have read a similar discussion in this forum, but the options offered there don't work for me (changing language).
    I think, Brigde doesnot find the converter. I have not find any option to tell Bridge that there is a DNG-Converter. (Which is in the Bridge directory)
    Is this a bug? Is there any whitepaper? On the Adobe webside I can't find any informations

  • Auto Import feature lacking convert to DNG and move to subfolders...

    Folks,
        As many of you may be aware, when setting up a folder for auto import, LR 3.3 does not give you the same options as you might see in the regular import functionality.  Namely, the ability to convert to RAW images to DNG on the import as well as move to subfolders is not available.  This is a real bugger for me as I have a nice new Eye-Fi Pro card that I have setup to dump all images from my camera to a "watched" folder which is then imported into LR automatically.  Unfortunately, auto import doesn't solve the issue for me, so I am back to doing the same old import routine I had done before which is tethering the camera back up via USB (or popping out the card and mounting it instead) and use the regular import feature.
        I realize a lot of the design impetus for auto import is around tethered usage, where a photographer may want to see the images as fast as possible, but why would Adobe cripple the auto import functionality deliberately.  Give the auto import the same functionality as the regular import and let the customers decide which works best for their setup.  Geez!!
    ~David

    I believe I watched a tutorial that indicated that Lightroom now downloads the raw files first and then does the conversion. This speeds up the download process and enables you to go back to my room to do other work more quickly. I cannot comment on the speed of the conversion because I don't convert to DNG. But my thoughts are that 700 raw files will take some time to convert.

  • Auto Import Settings needs same robust features as regular Import Photos feature...

    Hello,
         It is disappointing to not be able to select the feature to auto convert RAW images to DNG as well as copy/move files to subfolders (in my case date folders) using the Auto Import Settings feature in LR 3.3.  The main intent of my usage is not for tethered shooting as the feature may have originally been setup for, but moreover to import images from my Eye-Fi Pro SD card automatically to my LR catalog.  In fact, this limitation makes the auto import completely useless for me as I have to remove the SD card and mount it (or tether camera via USB) and import standardly.  Please make a stronge effort to unite the functionality of all import functions in LR and allow the customer to choose which settings work the best for their needs.
    Thanks,
    ~David

    The Eye-Fi Pro X2 (8GB) handles RAW imagery uploads, and does so in a pretty quick manner.  I have a Canon G9 that I use the Eye-Fi in and it's RAW images take about 4 seconds per 12.1 MP .CR2 image which isn't too slow for me really.  I am also right next to the access point so the wifi signal is stronger and transfers are therefore a bit faster.   I use this card also with ShutterSnitch (for iPad) and a 1DS Mark III for location shooting so the AD can monitor shots remotely on the iPad and not have to look over the shoulder at an LCD screen or through a loupe.  At any rate, I also have a few other gripes about what LR should be doing with imported images that it isn't currently that seem like big misses, but I will add these to another feature request.

  • Auto import missing full Import options

    Setup
    Nikon D2X with LR 1.3 Windows XP Pro sp2
    I am shooting NEF (Raw) with a D2X tethered to a laptop
    Nikon Capture Control drops new images in to a folder
    LR auto import is watching this folder and duly imports the pictures
    adding metadata as it does so.
    The options on the auto import are much more basic than the standard import features.
    I would like to import the NEFs to DNG and backup the NEFs.
    Are there plans to fix/improve this situation.
    Or am I missing something.
    (Apologies if this is a duplicate post I have spend quite some time searching and checking FAQs)
    /Graham

    I don't know if there's any impediment doing it this way shooting tetherered, but it seems a clunky workflow. Why convernt to DNG on import when you want the tethered operation to be as fast as it can be? Why backup images when you don't know what to keep?
    Best import RAW, then after at least one cut ediiting/culling, then convert and backup.

  • After unarchive a repository, the auto import is not working

    Hi All,
    I've met a problem when I archived a repository and unarchive it using another repository name:
    I can login to it by Console, and Data manager, etc. But when I put a input file to the Ready folder of its port, the file is not processed by the Import Server. On the other hand, all the other repositories on that server remain fine and the auto-import is normal.
    Could any one tell me if there is any other Config shold be done to make the import work?
    PS: still the 5.5 version, not 7.1.
    Thanks,
    Angela
    Edited by: Angela Zhang on Aug 6, 2009 9:09 AM
    Edited by: Angela Zhang on Aug 6, 2009 9:09 AM

    Hi Angela,
    If you are using any password for Admin user then same needs to be mentioned in MDIS.ini file. Check the below steps
    1. Open MDIS.ini file located in <MDM Insallation directory>/Import Server
    2. Navigate to your repository section
    3. Remove the character 'E' from the entry PasswordE
    4. Write the password of Admin user i.e. Password = abc
    5. Restart the Import Server once and check the same password entry, it should get converted to PasswordE and the value should be some characters.
    6. Now check the Auto Import
    Regards,
    Jitesh Talreja

  • How do I convert to DNG for CS3 without demosaicing?

    Recently purchased the Sigma 60mm 2.8 lens for my Sony NEX-6, which shoots ARW raw files. When converting to DNG (using the newest 8.2.0.94 version), the files increase in size from ~15MB to ~60MB. This appears to be because I have the compatibility settings set to Camera Raw 4.6 compatibility, and the converter believes this means it has to demosaic the image. This is done with no override and no warning that information is going to be discarded, despite the fact that I shoot raw files because I want raw data. How can I produce DNG files compatible with Photoshop CS3 and Camera Raw 4.6, without discarding data and producing huge files?
    This is doubly frustrating since manual lenses convert fine. I do not care about any lens correction information in the original ARW files, as only very minor corrections are needed anyway. Losing this information to produce good DNG files is perfectly acceptable to me.
    Similar threads show that newer versions of DNG can be converted to without the demasaicing being applied, but this is not helpful to me. See http://forums.adobe.com/message/4312768, http://forums.adobe.com/message/3333887.
    I have no plans to upgrade photoshop (especially the CC versions), so need something that works with CS3.

    Okay, so I lied. I'm going to answer one more time. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to change your "entire workflow". Take the example of a panorama image. As in ACR, I make adjustments to the raw images using Lightroom. Of course, I have imported those images so I'm able to see that folder of images in my Lightroom library. Lightroom has an adjustment where I can highlight all images and choose to "match total exposure". I have found that using that really simplifies the merging to panorama process.
    When I have done all that I need to do in Lightroom, I highlight all the images and choose the option to merge to panorama. Photoshop opens, the images that I've highlighted transfer to Photoshop and the panorama dialogue appears listing those images. I set my options and let Photoshop build the panorama.
    When I'm through with Photoshop I save the panorama image and return to Lightroom. The panorama is there automatically added to the catalog. I can take that image back to Photoshop if needed. And I can export images in different formats for different purposes. But I only have the master images and the one panorama that I have to maintain. If changes are decided upon in the future I only have the one image to worry about.
    The postprocessing in Lightroom is much more elegant (in my opinion) than ACR. You know, you can download Lightroom and try it for 30 days and see what you think. I still believe you are anticipating much more change than is really necessary. So my original answer still stands.

  • Trouble with CR2 and converting to DNG

    I am new at using camera raw files.  I recently got a Canon EOS Rebel XS/1000D as well as Adobe Lightroom 3.  I tried loading my CR2 files into Lightroom by "copying as DNG."  Once I did this, the program said "the files are from a camera which is not recognized by the raw format support in lightroom."  I then tried downloading the latest DNG converter from Adobe.com to convert my files, but this program also said "the source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files."  The third route I tried was loading my photos into brindge directly from my camera and checking "convert to DNG."  This did not work either.  When I looked on Adobe's website, I saw that Camera Raw 6.3 should be downloaded for Lightroom 3, but it is not compatable with CS4.  I did not do this because I did not want to interfere with the other CS4 programs and I am not sure if this has anything to do with it (I have camera raw 5.7 I beleive)  I have also tried saving my photos to my computer, then importing them, as well as directly importing them from the camera into Lightroom.
    Can anyone help me with this?  LIke I said, I am very new to using camera raw and Lightroom and I am not sure what I am doing wrong.

    CG_1225 wrote:
    also, I am not sure why the size of the photo was so small.  Could this be part of the problem?
    Almost certainly. I suspect the file got truncated.  The header info is there, but it looks like most of the image data is just missing.
    Buy some new good quality media and do not trust the card these images came off of until you can verify them. Even if the media is suspect, a card reader might have better luck extracting all the data, so just put the media away and look at it later.
    I've said it before, but it bears repeating. It isn't about /if/ your media or hard drive will fail, but /when/.  Flash media is tricky because it can go bad in really inconvenient ways like this.  Pro cameras are starting to accept dual media so you can at least have a JPEG copy on the other media if the raw write fails. But, as suggested elsethread, ALWAYS format the media in-camera so that the firmware on the card can spread the writes out over the entire card over time, and map out bad spots as they occur.  And they always occur.  Flash media starts to fail the moment we buy it and stick it in the camera.

  • Fujifilm raf converted in dng

    Shooting in raw, I have always converted to dng the raw files of my successive Canon DSLRs upon importing in Lightroom. The dng files were roughly the same size of the orinal raw file and I was able to directly open these dng files in many applications on my Mac: Preview, iPhoto and Photsoshop CS4.
    I recently bought a Fujifilm X-E1 and I was surprised to discover that
    1. as the original raw files are always 26.1 Mb, the corresponding dng file is roughly the double (between 47 and 59 Mb);
    2. even if the Mac and its native applications (Finder, Preview, iPhoto) recognize Fujifilm raf files, they don't recognize the converted dng files (on the contrary, Photoshop CS4, not surprisingly, doesn't recognize raf files but recognize the converted dng files).
    So, even if I was convinced that converting to dng had some advantages, considering the above disadvantages about the conversion from the new raf files, I think I will use the raf files without converting them to dng.
    What do you think of that? Do you have some further explanations?

    I have exactly the same issue!
    For what it's worth, i found the way to fix it for new imports. (using LR5, by the way).
    When importing the files, don't select embed raw data, and do not chose 1:1 previews. When I select standard previews, I in fact, get a smaller file than my RAF (from ~22 -> 18-16mb)
    My problem now, is, how do I "RECONVERT" those 50-55mb DNGs using the above settings on 3000 photos I have already taken! I'd very much would like 80GB back!
    Any ideas?

  • Should I use default Raw or convert to DNG?

    Hello,
    I have olympus SP570UZ and use LR 3. I'm not a professional photographer but do a lot of photography and shoot in raw. My question is should I use the default raw file for import/editing or should i convert to dng? does it effect editing capabilities and degrade the result when i convert to dng?
    I work on laptop and it seems a lot slower in loading default raw files. Will this improve my overall work time and lower load on cpu and space, but my first priority is picture quality?
    Thank you.

    Converting to DNG is really a matter of choice not necessity. If your camera is already supported by Lightroom / Camera Raw then there is little to be gained by converting the images to DNG at the beginning of your workflow. Many who champion DNG will keep their images in the camera vendors raw format until they've completed their edits and only then convert the final image to DNG.
    In answer to other questions. Performance - DNG is not some magic bullet that will increase the performance of your family saloon into that of a Porsche. Space - The lossless compression used by DNG is more efficient than that used by the majority of other raw formats, but only saves space if you trash the originals after conversion. (Note - trashing your original raw files is not something that I would ever recommend let alone suggest.) Quality - There should be no difference in quality between the original raw file and the DNG version.
    FWIW, DNG was originally proposed as standard "capture format" but as time has gone by and few camera vendors jumped on board Adobe's position has changed to "DNG is ideal as an archiving format". The latter is probably the less time consuming and more future proof approach. As mentioned above,it's also the approach adopted by many of those who champion the DNG format.
    No doubt someone else will come along and add their tuppence worth for one or the other, but if previous threads on the same subject are any guide you'll still be left wondering. Try typing your original question into Google and see the mass of info and opinion that already exists. I can hear the sound of Hornets buzzing already.
    Disclosure - I use DNG not raw throughout my workflow. This means that my thumbnails and previews accurately reflect the Adobe rendering in all of the applications "I" use. "I" don't use the camera vendors software (i.e. Canon DPP), so have no issues with the fact that it does not support DNG.

  • Converting to DNG but saving the original sequence # of image

    When I am shooting, I keep a log of what I shot using the sequence number assigned my camera. When I convert to DNG and rename my images and renumber, is there a way to keep the original numbers visible so that I can easily refer to them so that the data can be input easily? Otherwise transcribing the information from my logs will be tedious.

    Yes, the DNG converter will keep the "document name" plus allow the addition of numbering (right side , top box and menu).
    I always keep camera original name but add subject name to that on import into LR. When clients want dngs along with their originals, then it is a simple matter to add enumeration, among several choices, in a renaming process.
    I should add that I do NOT use the dng convertor within LR. I prefer the standalone convertor, because it can be working in the bkg while I continue work in LR. Dng conversions are not exactly fast.
    I should also add that I discourage clients from using DNGs unless they use cameras that receive little support in most apps. I have had unexplained troubles doing 1:1 preview rendering in LR with some dngs. That may be my configuration, or it may be something in LR.

  • Copying and Converting to DNG

    Using Lightroom 3 beta 2, when importing raw files to both a primary location and a secondary backup location, using "Copy and Convert to DNG". the files are copied to the primary location as DNG, but NOT to the secondary location where they are copied as NEF (Nikon) files.  Shouldn't they be copied as DNG to both locations, or am I missing something?

    Bob,
    I think the idea behind keeping your files as NEFs is that LR is archiving the original. That wouldn't be the case if it were converted to DNG at that point.
    Hal

  • Convert to DNG reversable?

    I was thinking of going all out and converting all my CR2s to DNGs. However, if I include the original CR2 it makes the file almost twice as large, so I don't want to do that. If I convert to DNG withOUT including the original, can I ever get it back to raw? And if yes, how?
    Thanks

    DdeGannes wrote:
     ...but if you wish to retain compatibility with your camera manufacturer's software then... 
    And its not just camera manufacturer software - there are many other non-camera-mfr/non-Adobe softwares that either don't support DNG at all, or say they support it, but then they won't read your Adobe DNG files! (of course its not their fault..., but still......)
    I say: "Never delete your originals".
    PS - If you've still got your originals, then the conversion is somewhat reversible:
    1. Flush all your edits into the xmp metadata of your DNG files by using Ctrl/Cmd-S (select target photos first).
    2. Use exiftool to extract the xmp metadata from your DNG files into xmp sidecar files - xmp sidecar base filename must match your originals.
    3. Replace the DNGs with the originals.
    4. Do a folder-sync (imports all the originals and applies xmp metadata from sidecar files). - You can delete the DNGs from the catalog during this phase, or leave them in with missing sources for awhile.
    You'll lose everything thats not in xmp, like virtual copies and collection affiliation, since the originals will be looking like new files to the catalog. But it will preserve edits, keywords, ratings, ..., since this stuff is saved in xmp metadata.
    There may be a plugin, and if there isn't, then there should be, that preserves all the other catalog data too, and if not then there will be and you may want to wait for it - the tools that make it fairly easy for a plugin to do have only been available for a short time.
    Rob

  • Converting to DNG - is it safer?

    I know this have probably been covered many times before, so please go easy on me... plus sorry if I'm talking crap!!!
    I'm always worried about getting a corrupting database again... I've set LR to always back up the database on each launch... but this wouldn't prevent the loss of any work done after the backup say at the end of a long session the database corrupts - I've lost everything up until the last backup!!!
    I liked the option to automatically write XML files, but its too much of a performance hit in LR v1.1
    So I'm thinking about converting everything to DNG files as my understanding is that all changes are stored inside the header of the file, thus should the database corrupt, all is not loss (except for virtual copies, flags & ratings etc)... is this correct or am I talking crap????
    Is there any disadvantages to converting to DNGs?
    Any suggestions welcome...
    Thanks,
    Stewart

    > "Where we tend to collide on issues, be it here or on other forums, is where you publish fluffy statements such as : DNG helps to make your data "future proof", or DNG is the only raw archival format. It's precisely that kind of fluff that I feel misleads and propogates "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"."
    Name ANOTHER raw file format designed as an archival format! BUT ... use the characteristics used by archivists and librarians, and tell us what they are. The problem with this sort of discussion is that people make up their own definitions of archiving and the characteristics needed for it. But I have spent a lot of time reading academic and practical literature on this topic.
    Archivists and librarians have a number of requirements, and the following page (for the US Library of Congress) is a good summary of them. They include disclosed specifications; wide adoption; self-documenting metadata, especially metadata formats that are also widely adopted; reduced or no external dependencies; no impact from patents; no encryption or other technical obstacles; etc.
    http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml
    People who believe that camera manufacturers' raw formats are suitable for archiving presumably use some other definition of their own. I believe they are typically talking about "back-up": being able to use the file in circumstances similar to today's circumstances. If that is all they want, that is fine - as long as they don't mislead people into believing that future workflows and tools will be sufficiently like today's that this will still work. Some of the tools we will be using in a decade haven't been thought of yet.
    > "Even if DNG were more universally accepted, the format is designed to enable the blackboxing of data -- although another poster recently described it more like trolling through a tackle box than a black box ...".
    If you simply mean "DNG files can contain DNGPrivateData that may not be documented by the creator" then please say so. That talk of "blackboxing of data" is just a FUD-phrase, and largely meaningless. Then you have to ponder that ALL of a NEF or CR2 isn't "documented by the creator". In other words, your criticism of DNGPrivateData is criticism of the whole of a NEF or CR2.
    Now switch your attention to the parts of a DNG that ARE documented - by Adobe, rather than the creator, but so what? The parts that ARE openly specified are sufficient for high quality rendering, or previewing, or metadata-processing, etc. That is one of the key things that means it is false to say that DNG is "just another raw format" or "just another container". It is something that many people haven't understood - DNG is a self-contained raw file format, which can be handled by software products that don't have any built-in details of the camera model concerned. Name another raw file format with that characteristic!
    This is one of the archival features of DNG. To write a new software product in future to handle the camera manufacturers' raw files from today's cameras, it will be necessary to build-in camera-model data for today's cameras. (But it won't for DNG). Now - where are they going to get that camera-model data from? Today, they get it by obtaining such a camera and testing it. In future ...? (My best guess is that they will either not bother for less popular cameras, or will extract the details from dcraw or similar for more popular cameras, or get it from DNG - which is where dcraw got some of its information, of course!)
    > "For example, there is no assurance the work one invests into a Lightroom DNG -- e.g. spot remover, red eye remover, crop overlay, can be used by another application. That data, to the best of my knowledge, is locked away inside the file so that it is only available to Adobe applications. The portability of the value added by the user can only be realized within an Adobe workflow."
    Your knowledge is wrong. Have you ever looked inside a DNG file to see what is there? (I suspect you haven't). Open one with Word - you will find the settings metadata in XMP format (nicely tabbed!) near the start of the file. It is exactly the same as the data in an XMP sidecar file. (It has tag 700 in the DNG file, in case you want to use a TIFF-tool to handle it).
    The editing metadata, whether in an XMP sidecar or in a DNG file, is largely (not entirely) based on ACR or Lightroom sliders. But the editing metadata for any other raw converter is based on the controls of that raw converter - this isn't a problem specific to DNG or Adobe, but is industry-wide. Editing metadata tends to be editor-specific. But I'll bet that there is more editing metadata created every day based on ACR or Lightroom sliders than any other editing metadata.
    I haven't seen a proposal for the commonality of editing metadata values; and I emphasise, this is not a fault of DNG, it applies to all editors and all raw file formats. But Peter Krogh recommends creating a full-sized JPEG (rendered using that editing metadata) and storing that in the DNG, either for general use or to identify the original rendering intentions. (It is trivial to put such a preview there and extract it later).
    > "1. Nothing is future proof, only future resistant. That resistance depends on the current and future consensus -- which when it comes to DNG is still anything but clear."
    One thing is clear - in this respect it is far better than any alternative! It is VITALLY important to examine alternatives using the same criteria, and NEF and CR2 don't stand up to the same scrutiny. (Too many people appear to use the argument "there are these problems with DNG, therefore we'll use these other formats", forgetting that they have all the same problems plus lots more!)
    > "Before accusing others of spreading FUD, I think you need to put your own practices under the loupe."
    I have published my analysis, and it is available for anyone to scrutinise. My pages give the information and evidence that analysis is based on. Where is your information, evidence, and analysis for us to scrutinise?
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/

Maybe you are looking for