DNG/raw+XMP workflow comparison

[ Note: this discussion has been branched from an existing one (link on top ^) and deals about DNG-raw+XMP -PECourtejoie ]
Omke Oudeman wrote:
What Disk based XMP data file you are referring to and you think Camera Raw get's involved in this while writing metadata? Could you specify your thoughts about that, I thought it only reads the new thumbnail after saving metadata to the newly saved filed after a keyword has been added.
And an other thought, you have to set the Camera Raw general section to save image settings to either side car XMP files or Camera Raw Database. Might this be of importance to set to either of the two for testing. That said, default is sidecar files and I don't see any benefit with saving in a central data base instead of having the settings traveling in (DNG) or beside (XMP sidecar)
I deal primarily with image files, specifically NEF, PSD, and JPG. All Camera Raw 'edits' are stored to the XMP sidecar files (in the case of NEF files), or as embedded metadata (in the case of the other formats). Of course, they aren't really edits, and are more like conversion instructions for Camera Raw.
Whenever I keyword raw files, their XMP sidecars are modified to include the keywords. If you inspect one of these XMP sidecars, you will see that they contain Camera Raw settings, keywords, and camera EXIF data--anything you might need to know about the image, stored externally to the image file. I don't know for sure, but I guess that some or all of this information is also stored in the Bridge database. I would never dream of trusting XMP data to a single database, as it constitutes many hundreds/thousands of hours' work. As it stands, I like that I can keep the XMP with my raw files, where I can see them!
It's important not to get confused between the Bridge database and the Bridge cache, and the equivalent database/cache belonging to Camera Raw. I haven't found much information on the Bridge database--I guess it's central to the operation of Bridge and the way it handles files and its cache. The Bridge cache appears quite straightforward, being a hierarchy of jpegs designed to allow Bridge to display images quickly.
Bridge uses Camera Raw in order to generate 'High Quality' thumbnails and previews of supported image types, based on XMP data, optionally including TIFF and JPEG. Camera Raw has its own mysterious database and cache, but this internal working is irrelevant to this subject (AFAIK) as Bridge only uses Camera Raw as an API for generating previews for the cache, and keeps an eye on any file updates made externally in order to keep its own records up-to-date. This is presumably why Bridge is always reading the disk.

I deal primarily with image files, specifically NEF, PSD, and JPG. All Camera Raw 'edits' are stored to the XMP sidecar files (in the case of NEF files), or as embedded metadata (in the case of the other formats). Of course, they aren't really edits, and are more like conversion instructions for Camera Raw.
Same here although my NEF's are CR2 form Canon and always converted to DNG, so no worry about sidecar files that can be lost
Whenever I keyword raw files, their XMP sidecars are modified to include the keywords. If you inspect one of these XMP sidecars, you will see that they contain Camera Raw settings, keywords, and camera EXIF data--anything you might need to know about the image, stored externally to the image file. I don't know for sure, but I guess that some or all of this information is also stored in the Bridge database. I would never dream of trusting XMP data to a single database, as it constitutes many hundreds/thousands of hours' work. As it stands, I like that I can keep the XMP with my raw files, where I can see them!
Here is where I got a little lost, as earlier stated I was not aware of keywords, labels and rating stored in sidecar XMP, I always thought those files only contained the ACR settings. Using DNG one of the many pro's (sorry Mike, don't want to start again ) is that all info is stored in the file itself and no sidecar files.
And to be honest, I won't have many problems with lost ACR settings, they can be easily recreated for my workflow and in the analog days you were also not able to recreate a negative in the same way after a few days or more due to different chemicals/temperature, enlarger light source strength, other box of paper and not to forget your own moods....
But losing other IPTC settings like copyright and keywords is a problem. When having converted ('developed') the raw files there is no problem for this info, it is stored in the file info and according to IPTC standards visible by most applications.
I have decided to not provide vital info on raw files (CR2 or DNG) other then rating/labeling and changing the filename to yyyymmdd and sequence number. My keywords and description etc are only added to the keepers. They are renamed too but with the same yyyymmdd and a more relevant name and sequence number. I also include the original filename option while batch renaming. The DNG files are just stored on a HD with a proper year and date folder structure, there are also far to much raw files to put all those effort for keywording in.
The keepers are going in my central archive and I use Canto Cumulus single user as DAM. When needed I can find the originals very easy, even don't use Bridge to look for the right one, just glance at the original filename, use the Finder (windows explorer?) to find the files on the external HD and copy the wanted file with some others from same series and these are cached in Bridge to look at and work on. I do so because Bridge takes to long to cache (even with only thumbs) from external sources and the above mentioned method is much faster
It's important not to get confused between the Bridge database and the Bridge cache, and the equivalent database/cache belonging to Camera Raw. I haven't found much information on the Bridge database--I guess it's central to the operation of Bridge and the way it handles files and its cache. The Bridge cache appears quite straightforward, being a hierarchy of jpegs designed to allow Bridge to display images quickly.
For me there is no confusion between Bridge cache and ACR cache, they are both easy to find and I regularly dump the whole Cache file for Bridge after it has grown over 30 GB in size. I can't rely on Bridge for use of DAM and it gives a fresh start and the cache rebuilding is not that time consuming when it can do its work and you don't need the computer yourself. I also don't worry about the ACR cache, it does not grow above 1GB and replaces the oldest with the newest so don't have to clean it myself.
just wondering where to find the Bridge Database, can't find it and according to the activity it should have huge sizes??
It is still a mystery to me.

Similar Messages

  • DNG + RAW + XMP?

    I seem to have, in some of my photo folders, a dng and raw version of my the same picture plus a xmp sidecar. My computer is a bit bloated and I want to toss out these. Is it okay to just delete the Raw and xmp files and leave the dmg ? Also the DNG seems to be twice the size of the original Raw file - should I delete it instead?
    Mac OSX 10.5.8
    LR 2.7
    Cheers,Simon

    Duck Shots wrote:
    I do not understand the xmp. I have raw files stored on my hard drive. They carry xmp extensions. I have a backup. The backup has the file and the xmp. I want to change to DNG.
    Adobe treats proprietary raws as read only. All the necessary instructions about the rendering is stored in the sidecar XMP. IF you convert the raws to DNG, you’ll be able to trash both the original proprietary raws (if you want to with or without a backup) and all the associated XMP. DNG contains the XMP instructions as Adobe does treat DNG as read and write capable. IOW, one of the advantages of DNG is you do not have to deal with these XMP sidecar files any longer.
    See:
    http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

  • Off-the-shelf products that can access DNG's XMP?

    I'm sorry if this is off-topic.
    I'm a photographer who uses DNG as my raw file format, and puts various things, (name, copyright statement, website, keywords, etc), into the DNGs, in the form of XMP. (Using Bridge + ACR). Then this XMP eventually gets into the PSDs, JPEGs, etc.
    I do so on the assumption that in future I will be able to get off-the-shelf tools that will do something useful with this. Asset managers, etc. Or perhaps tools that will add to it - for example, adding GPS log data. Etc.
    But this assumes that embedded XMP will be accepted as something that (non-Adobe) off-the-shelf tools will handle, perhaps routinely. I simply don't have a feel for whether that is the way the industry is going, or whether it will be concentrated in niche and specialised and bespoke tools. I would appreciate information of "routine" take-up.
    Thanks.
    (PLEASE don't give me a sales-pitch for XMP! I'm beyond the need for that).

    Thanks, johnbeardy. (And thanks for your recent suggestions, you know where, for classifying support for DNG, and even XMP).
    I am building up a picture here that the key to a sustainable DNG-based workflow isn't simply to have lots of tools, (by that I include "full blown applications"), that support DNG in some form. It is to have tools that can also exploit, in & out, the XMP metadata within the DNGs.
    The vision I am getting of the desirable future of raw shooting has DNG at the centre, as a container for the raw image, a lot of XMP metadata of various sorts, plus some other stuff. It isn't a product-centred vision, it is a DNG-containing-XMP centred vision.
    I suspect that this will be a hard vision to explain to others! You, and AlaskaBob, and Peter Krogh, and some, (probably not all), people in Adobe, won't have a problem - in fact, I'm a bit late on the scene. But there are very many people who can't even see the strategic advantages of DNG, let alone DNG-containing-XMP!
    Very illuminating! Thanks.

  • How is the XMP workflow supposed to work between CS6 and LR4.1

    Can somebody please enlighten me ?
    I have a raw file in Lightroom, xmp files turned on.
    I open the file as a smart object in Photoshop.
    Back in Lightroom I do some edits, and to be sure, I save the edits back to the XMP.
    Back in Photoshop, no matter what I try, my edits are not picked up. I tried opening the smart object etc...but ACR does not pick up the edits I just made in Lightroom (even when the XMP file is up to date).
    If I resubmit the edited image from Lightroom, my edits are picked up, but this can't be the way it's supposed to work, can it ? What good is a smart object if you need to resubmit it each time...
    Isn't the XMP workflow supposed to be seamless between adobe applications, picking up any edit, no matter where the edit is made (from acr to lightroom and vice versa) ?
    I'm probably missing something, but would appreciate some help.

    Taking a little distance and looking at it from that angle, I can understand why it works the way it does now.
    Still, I feel there are some missed opportunities here.
    Compared to working between indesign and photoshop, when I have an indesign layout and I later edit the placed photoshop document, Indesign gives me a warning that my version is changed and I can update it to reflect the latest state.
    A similar thing could be done here inside photoshop "update to latest Lightroom edits" or something similar which could be totally optional for the end user to use or not.
    My confusion was mostly caused by the XMP files, it stuck in my head that these were external files holding all knowledge and no matter which Adobe program you used, it would work with those same xmp files... but I understood wrong apparently.
    I still have a lot to learn, thanks for all the answers, it is very helpfull.

  • Plans to enable import of Cinema DNG (RAW) files from the Blackmagic POCKET Cinema Camera

    Are there plans to enable import of Cinema DNG (RAW) files from the Black Magic POCKET Cinema Camera into Adobe Premiere Pro CS6?

    There won't be any new features introduced in CS6, only some bug fixes if ever. All new features go into CC. Rumour has it that Camera RAW will be added into PrPro (sooner or later).
    Off topic question: have you tried to convert BMPCC CinemaDNG files into DNG via Adobe DNG Converter? Resulting files are about 15% larger, so I hope that is what constitutes uncompressing them and making possible to import into PrPro CC natively (I'm not on CC, hence can't test, but I'm curious).

  • DNG raw plug in 8.2 cannot open raw files from canon camera S120

    After downloading DNG raw plug in 8.2 for CS5 for the new Canon S120 camera, the raw file still cannot be open
    Can someone help

    Right, ACR 8.3 is for cs6 and cc; it will not work as a plugin update in CS5.  You should download the 8.3 DNG converter stand alone program from
    http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates.html
    then use it to convert folders of your new S120 cr2 raw files to folders of dng files, which can be processed in your cs5 by acr 6.7 (latest cs5 release).

  • PS CC 2014 DNG and RAW 8.5 did not update with the rest of the CC package. I downloaded/installed the DNG/RAW converter but how do you install w/i CC 2014 plugins

    PS CC 2014 DNG and RAW 8.5 did not update with the rest of the CC package. I downloaded/installed the DNG/RAW converter but how do you install w/i CC 2014 plugins

    Thanks John. I have tried solutions 1 to 3 from (-http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/aam-lists-removed-apps-date.h tml) and they do not work. So I presume that all I can do is to remove all 25 CC applications and start again!
    Incidently, ( http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates/ ) does not list Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 as an update even though Adobe have announced that it is available (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/04/camera-raw-8-4-and-dng-converter-8-4-now-a vailable.html). The same applies for Adobe Premiere Pro 7.2.2 (http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2014/04/premiere-pro-cc-7-2-2.html). If they are not available this would explain why I cannot download them but I am very suprised that Adobe didn't mention this when I contacted them.
    Anyway thanks again

  • Fcpx import dng raw image

    Fcpx import of a raw image is advertised to work in its help databases, but it actually doesnt work.
    I tested the most known and now industry standard Raw format, which is the Adobe DNG raw format, and FCPX ignores the embedded jpg preview .
    i tried older versions of the Adobe DNG Raw formats imports , and also tried to update the embedded preview images to all variations offered by the adobe Dng raw converter , but even all those tests showed that FCPX is ignoring the previews of these now industry standard RAw images.
    needless to say that it is likely that none of the other lesser important raw formats, like the CR2 from Canon or others will not work.
    this here is a message to the Apple FCPX developpers , who seems to think a Formula one car can drive with just 3 wheels....

    Fcpx import of a raw image is advertised to work in its help databases, but it actually doesnt work.
    I tested the most known and now industry standard Raw format, which is the Adobe DNG raw format, and FCPX ignores the embedded jpg preview .
    i tried older versions of the Adobe DNG Raw formats imports , and also tried to update the embedded preview images to all variations offered by the adobe Dng raw converter , but even all those tests showed that FCPX is ignoring the previews of these now industry standard RAw images.
    This is your first paragraph.
    I simply wanted to confirm the same behavior in CR2, but never mind.

  • What's a good solution for cataloging DNG raw photo files for creative teams?

    Does anyone know of a good solution for cataloging DNG raw photo files for creative teams? I'm looking for something that will extract previews as well as be searchable by category and keywords?

    Does anyone know of a good solution for cataloging DNG raw photo files for creative teams? I'm looking for something that will extract previews as well as be searchable by category and keywords?

  • Does my DNG/RAW workflow make sense to you?

    Ive been shooting RAW from my Nikon D50, converting the files to DNG (3.3), opening them in Adobe Camera RAW (2.4) using PSCS, processing and saving in TIFF (often through a droplet). In the process I retain the original RAW .NEF file, create a universal DNG file, and finally create a lossless TIFF file.
    I do things this way because I want the supposedly more universal format of DNG, and Camera RAW 2.4 (which runs on CS) doesnt officially support the D50 .NEF file.
    I cant think of a reason to upgrade either the DNG converter or Camera RAW files. It appears that the new versions basically just support new cameras. Besides, to do so Id have to upgrade to CS3, and thats totally out of the question.
    I take about 2,500-3,000 shots a year not counting the ones I take for experimenting with different settings and such. I know some folk might think my process is time consuming and/or overkill to create and retain DNGs AND TIFFs, but Im thinking it just makes sense. Does this workflow make sense to anyone other than myself?
    Im going to post this in both the RAW and DNF forums to see who thinks what. Thanks for your opinions!

    Ive been hanging around the forums for a couple years now and have learned quite a bit from the others. Perhaps Ive helped others in the meantime. Im thinking thats the intent of the forum. Ive seen people blasted for not being as knowledgeable as some of the others and Ive always thought it's a shame. However, it appears Ive accidentally irritated folk by asking an opinion of something.
    I mentioned in the OP that I'll not be upgrading to CS3 or any other version of PS. So by default, and a point not picked up by some- the question is really in regard to the newer version of DNG and NOT Camera RAW.
    When I looked at the download page it appeared that the new version of DNG might somehow be connected to RAW. After all, they are in the same .ZIP file. Mr. Knoll was kind enough to point out that the newest version of DNG didnt require a PS upgrade. I should have figured that out myself as its a stand alone program, but by the way it was packaged Anyway, I downloaded the file, and unzipped it. Then ran DNG.
    It works fine. Just as the previous version. But what I was asking, and what some people took issue with, was if there were features that had been faulty with previous version, or perhaps previous versions did work with RAW formats from certain cameras. Things like that.
    I was thinking Mr. Knoll or another knowledgeable person might respond with Sure, Thomas, the newer version of DNG processes batch files much faster due to an improved bit-handling algorithm or Naw, the newer version of DNG is just compatible with more camera formats, so if the version you have works, no need to upgrade, or maybe even The newer version fixes a few minor issues with converting files over 9 MB in size.
    Instead, I was told that I wouldn't be asking such a preposterous, absurd question. if I had read the linked article. Well, prior to my second post, I did read it read it. Its a nicely written article with some great shots of the interface. It touts the new RAW as the best there is, and according to the author, Jeff Schewe, its well worth the price. But I also noticed it said nothing of the new version of DNG. Maybe thats because the article is titled About Camera RAW 4.1.
    Thank you, Mr. Knoll and G Sch.

  • Ok to convert raw xmp to dng?

    I am converting a bunch of raws to DNG that have xmp files and I am noticing that the xmp files are being dumped in the trash as well. Should I be concerned?  Is this something I should do if I want to conserve space but keep my changes to my old raw files?
    Thank you

    The XMP information is stored inside the DNG, so it's not a cause for concern. (from your description, you're deleting the Raw files).

  • Advice for fitting DNG into my workflow...

    I know that a similar question has certainly been asked by someone else prior to this, and believe me I have searched these forums to try to find the answer to my question, but didn't have much luck
    I have been tossing and turning with the idea of converting all of my RAW images (.CR2 Canon RAW images) into the DNG format for some time now, but I never really had the guts to batch through tens of thousands of images before...but with the addition of Adobe Lightroom to my digital darkroom toolkit, I think that now might be the time.
    One of the main reasons that I feel is a good enough one for me to convert all of my images to DNG is simply the fact that having an .xmp sidecar file to go along with each and every RAW image in my collection (hundreds of thousands), seems like it just leaves the door open for twice as many possibilities for something to go wrong...I mean, I have to simply sit back and just hope that they:
    - always stay in the same folder as the original RAW file
    - don't get inadvertently deleted by a client who thought they were some random .DS_Store or .thumbs file that the OS put there
    - don't somehow get renamed and no longer match the name of the original
    - or that they simply don't get corrupt somehow
    Seems like a lot more to worry about to me...plus, having twice as many files on a drives, at least to some degree, has got to take its toll on the fragmentation of the drive, right?
    Are there any other potential drawbacks to DNG? Are there any added capabilities that one has with proprietary RAW formats that they don't have with DNG (when used in any mainstream professional software applications out there - such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop, iView Media Pro, Photo Mechanic, etc.)?
    I guess I am just tired of going out of my way to explain to clients all about the importance of the .xmp file, and that they should never delete it, relocate it, or rename it...I am posting this question right now in response to the fact that I just finished a 3 month assignment, and I have to hand over 45,000 RAW files to a client for their archives, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they, nor the person that will replace them in their positions, 1, 5, or 10 years from now, will have the first clue what they heck those .xmp files are for...It just seems a whole lot easier to have one file for every one picture, doesn't it?
    I know that the big concern that a lot of people have regarding the .DNG extension is that there is no guarantee that it will be around in 5, 10 or 20 years from now, or that it may very well never get adopted by the industry...but the fact is, its almost certainly a possibility (and likely a probability) that 5, 10, or 20 years from now the proprietary RAW image formats developed by some (if not most) of today's camera manufacturers are going to be lost themselves, right? I mean come on...the .TIF format chosen by Canon and used by the EOS-1Ds is bound to get the boot sooner than later...
    So can it really be that the biggest negative about DNG involves its shelf-life (versus that of the proprietary formats)? Does anyone really believe that Adobe is simply going to drop support for the format in the years to come, or that they won't be around as a company 20 years from now? ...and, even if they did drop support for it, or if they fade into non-existence as a company in the distant future, the DNG format has a completely open and well documented source coding, so someone else could (and would) definitely come out with some new software tool to convert DNG to whatever the heck the future hypothetical RAW format would be 20 years from now, right?
    I wanted to hear what people's thoughts were on the issue...Should I make the mass conversion? Am I creating any limitations for myself and for my images by doing so (specifically, such as any limitations when using DNG versus .CR2 with Lightroom or Photoshop)? Are there any other concerns I should have?
    If there are any pro

    > "Are there any other potential drawbacks to DNG?"
    The main drawback is that some software products don't (yet) support DNG. The basic list of those that don't is "the large majority of products supplied by camera manufacturers, plus a few others, of which Bibble and Capture One are probably the only important ones". (Capture One is planned to support DNG in v4 later this year).
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/not_yet.htm
    There are probably still cases where the Adobe doesn't know enough about the metadata within the raw file that it can't copy it all across. It is said that this is NOT a problem with NEF and CR2 - but I've read about problems with ORF.
    > "I know that the big concern that a lot of people have regarding the .DNG extension is that there is no guarantee that it will be around in 5, 10 or 20 years from now, or that it may very well never get adopted by the industry".
    DNG is openly-documented and has a freely-available source-based SDK. It is also supported by non-Adobe freely-available source code such as dcraw. Given the number of DNGs there will be in the world in future, hence the motivation of many people to exploit those resources, there is no chance that they will become orphaned whatever happens to Adobe.
    It has already been accepted by much of the industry - a number of cameras and digital backs use it in camera, and more than 160 products from more than 150 sources support it. Canon and Nikon stand out as the main exceptions, and may remain so for years, but they are not the whole industry. Probably most photographers with a DNG-based workflow use Canon or Nikon, and probably most DNGs in the world contain raw image data that started in Canon or Nikon cameras.
    > "... any limitations when using DNG versus .CR2 with Lightroom or Photoshop".
    In every case I've tried, (for raws from several camera makes & models), the following routes give pixel-identical results as long as the product versions are the same:
    Original raw > ACR > Photoshop
    Original raw > DNG Converter > DNG > ACR > Photoshop
    I try to provide answers to this sort of question at the following, which attempts to identify disadvantages as well as advantages, so that people can make their own informed decisions:
    http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/
    > "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they, nor the person that will replace them in their positions, 1, 5, or 10 years from now, will have the first clue what they heck those .xmp files are for...It just seems a whole lot easier to have one file for every one picture, doesn't it?"
    This is part of the whole topic of "archiving". DNG is designed to be good for archiving - I believe it is the only raw file format that is. In fact, as far as I know, a DNG will contain a superset of the data that was in the original CR2 or NEF. (But it is hard to get precise statements on this).

  • DNG/Smart Object Workflow Options

    Hi, we have been converting all of our RAW files to DNG upon receiving from photographers. So this is the format we will use going forward for all RAW images.
    We create web banners from these images in a master Photoshop file that allows us to crop and optimize in one place. The end file will have many layers of banners that we will export for each page header.
    But we decided to embed the RAW files as Smart Objects so that we could make any further tweaks in ACR as we went along.
    - Am I correct in assuming that ONLY the initial ACR adjustments made before opening the DNG in PS as a Smart Object will be stored in the actual DNG file? Any further refinements made from PS by double-clicking to open in ACR won't be stored in the original DNG file?
    - If this is the case, are there any scripts, automations or workflow suggestions that would allow us to keep our original DNG files up-to-date with all adjustments made, including those done after being made a Smart Object in PS (we use PS CS6 currently)?
    It is really convenient to have all the images in the one PS document as Smart Objects that can be re-adjusted as needed. But I would also like to be able to batch save the DNG's for a different purpose (e.g, master files for printing) without having to go back and redo all the adjustments.
    Ideas??

    Ahh, thanks. So Photoshop now works like InDesign using linked layers? And that works with updating DNG settings as with native Illustrator/PS documents?
    That's a nice upgrade. Moving the whole office to CC is a fairly major undertaking (once we're in, I imagine we're stuck paying each month).
    - Any options for working in CS6 (e.g,. ways to export settings or DNG's from layers)?!?
    Thanks again!

  • RAW panorama workflow

    Been inclined recently to try a few panoramas using a 5D3 and tilt shift lenses, shooting in RAW.
    I get the impression there is a workflow that can go from Lightroom 4 / Bridge, then Photoshop CS6 and back into Lightroom that can stitch 3 images together and keep them in .dng.
    So far I've stitched them together in Photoshop - and I'm dead impressed with what it can do - but I'm having real trouble getting the images back into Lightroom in anything other than PSD or Tiffs. Is it always going to be one of those file options?
    I'm keen to try to keep a RAW workflow throughout. Anyone done anything like this? The web is full of solutions as long as you go Jpeg.
    Cheers
    Richard

    Here's an example panorana created using five images with LR4.3 'Merge to Panorama in PS CS6' and Hugin 2012.0.0. I used the best rectilinear correction mode, which is 'Perspective' in Photomerge and 'Rectilinear' in Hugin. Both have no manual adjustments applied other than crop. Both are equally sharp at 1:1 view. The horizontal angle of view is 132°.
    I'm not sure why Photomerge created an image with vertical convergence because all five of the original images have perfectly parallel verticals. In addition there are no controls or settings in Photomerge I can find to correct this during stitching. The stitched image requires Vertical convergence correction and rectilinear distortion correction. This takes additional time and will reduce the image sharpness and the constrain to crop area.
    Double-Click to see full-size
    Using the cylindrical projection mode both the Photomerge and Hugin stitched images look near identical. What's interesting as that Photmerge kept the verticals parallel with using the cylindrical projection setting. As Jao vdL said, It is very inflexible and often moves the perspective around in undesireable ways. The intelligence is simply not very intelligent."

  • APERTURE2+PHOTOSHOPCS3- DNG+JPEG - BEST WORKFLOW (+IPHOTO09 ??)

    Sorry for my English (I'm Italian)
    I shoot Raw+Jpeg (DNG). Keep Photos on External Drive. I like to import to Aperture directly from the External Drive. LATER I use PS to Edit Jpeg (if it is acceptable) or DNG if it is necessary to use the kind of adjustment you only get from RAW. Than I saw the image as Jpeg REPLACEING the original Jpeg made in the Camera (Pentax K10 and K20) keeping the same file name of course of previous Jpeg and RAW. I like to use Aperture to arrange pictures and to publish on Gallery or with iWeb.
    This sometimes creates some confusion: it happens that later Aperture finds more that one singe Jpeg, with same file name and (1) or (2) and so on.
    Which would be the best workflow ? I would like to keep the DNG unchanged on the external drive and several Jpeg if I wish more editions.
    Amd which could be the best way to separate DNG from Jpeg into Aperture ? Is it really the best solution to see them "toghether" in Aperture ??
    I am also wondering if I could install iPhoto 09 and use it to organize the facies... but later ?
    What will happen with Aperture.
    I know I use this software not in the best way but....
    Give me a simple suggestion and I will try to follow. At the moment I am thinking to keep completely separate the DNG from Jpeg to be sure not to mix them.
    Thanks for your patience and time.

    Sorry for my English (I'm Italian)
    I shoot Raw+Jpeg (DNG). Keep Photos on External Drive. I like to import to Aperture directly from the External Drive. LATER I use PS to Edit Jpeg (if it is acceptable) or DNG if it is necessary to use the kind of adjustment you only get from RAW. Than I saw the image as Jpeg REPLACEING the original Jpeg made in the Camera (Pentax K10 and K20) keeping the same file name of course of previous Jpeg and RAW. I like to use Aperture to arrange pictures and to publish on Gallery or with iWeb.
    This sometimes creates some confusion: it happens that later Aperture finds more that one singe Jpeg, with same file name and (1) or (2) and so on.
    Which would be the best workflow ? I would like to keep the DNG unchanged on the external drive and several Jpeg if I wish more editions.
    Amd which could be the best way to separate DNG from Jpeg into Aperture ? Is it really the best solution to see them "toghether" in Aperture ??
    I am also wondering if I could install iPhoto 09 and use it to organize the facies... but later ?
    What will happen with Aperture.
    I know I use this software not in the best way but....
    Give me a simple suggestion and I will try to follow. At the moment I am thinking to keep completely separate the DNG from Jpeg to be sure not to mix them.
    Thanks for your patience and time.

Maybe you are looking for