LR destroys original raw files

Question

I made this as direct as I could .  Here are the facts: 
                        1.  My cameras are Leica M8/9 s and they produce DNG s as their raw format.  So I am starting with a camera generated DNG.
                        2. I utilized the Mac OS folder structure for managing my originals .  Import to the Mac folder structure independent of LR.
                        3. I import into LR using the reference the files without moving. 
                        4. It is clear that any processing done in LR including the use of camera profiles,develop settings and meta data are written back into the original DNG.    With other raw formats the information is written into a .xmp.  
                        5. It is unclear if the raw file itself has been altered as some individuals are reporting that the raw file itself has been processed using the profile available.   Other programs recognize the dng as a processed version and will not apply a camera profile. 
This has significant implications for workflow and backup processes and it certainly doesn t fit with the non destructive benefit?? of LR.

Answer 1

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Roger Dunham <[email protected]> said:
For your answer to be relevant ..it has to consider the specific situation the OP is trying to work through.   Getting answers like ......LR is handling it correctly the problem is the 3rd party software , or maybe switch to a D3x ,or look at the DNG with a fully DNG compliant viewer....show a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem.
Here's an equivalent analogy: you are using MS Office 2007 to write
out documents, and it is saving them in it's DOCX format (the latest
revision to the Word DOC format). Then you are trying to open them
with a word processor that only understands the older DOC format, and
not the newer DOCX.
The complaints were the same then, too.
The problem is that the 3rd party software is not as update as the
other. The problem is in mixing software software packages with
differing levels of support for what you want to do. Yes, it sucks
when you get bitten by such mis-understandings. We do sympathize.Yes,
some of us have been bitten by the same sorts of incompatibilities
(with other software packages). But you're going about this completely
in the wrong way.
Are you also being this assertive on C1 forums, demanding that they
upgrade the DNG support to maintain compatability with the latest
revision of DNG? Or including warnings when they import a new revision
of DNG, that C1 doesn't support it?
Because it certainly seems that you want Adobe to change the way their
products work, so that the files are as compatible with other programs
as possible, If that's what you want, then the changes should come
from both directions, don't you think? Isn't your point that a DNG
file should be readable by all software the same? If so, then
shouldn't the other manufacturers be pressured to move forward, just
as much as Adobe should be pressured to maintain backward
compatibility?
Asking me to prove that the situation exists are insulting.
Asking for documented examples is not insulting; it's standard
practice when tracking down a bug. I've worked with enough software
developers over the years (I'm a network administrator) to know that.
You're so absolutely convinced that you are right, and Adobe wrong,
that you are not willing to do that. Perhaps if you did, then Adobe
could identify specifically what areas cause the problem, and perhaps
issue a patch, just for those areas. But you're not willing to help,
in that way.