Saving processed files in original raw (or DNG?) format

Hello. I'm new to Lightroom, so although I've spent a day or so ploughing through the tutorials, please accept my apologies if my question seems dumb.
However I can't see an answer to my problem so far.
It is this: after importing my raw files (CR2) into Lightroom and processing them etc to get them to a result I'm happy with, I'd now like to be able to keep the new, processed version of my images somewhere in Lightroom in the original raw format so that I can quickly access those processed images again in the future and then export in appropriate formats as I choose, which might be screen jpegs or prints or whatever – different from my first export.
In other words, I know I can 'save' (export) files to a folder as jpegs etc, but if I subsequently decide to export those same files in a different format (e.g prints), I don't want to have to go back to the original raw files and start the processing all over again to arrive at what I'd already been happy with, in order to re-export.
I suspect I'm missing something really basic here, but it's so basic I can't work out what it is!
I suppose another way of reframing the question might be: is there a way I can save and store my processed raw images in Lightroom so that I can access them easily, and not have to re-process them unless I want to?
I haven't yet got my head around DNG files. Is this part of the solution perhaps?
Lightroom is incredibly fantastic, but now that I've managed to get my images to where I want them, I don't want to re-visit the processing on them un-necessarily, which is what I seem to be doing at the moment...
I have Lightroom 5.4 on a Macbook Air running Mavericks OSX 10.9.2 if it makes any difference.
Thank you, I would be very grateful for your advice.

While the advice to read Victoria bampton's Quick Start Guide is excellent, I'd like to provide a little shorter piece of philosphy that might help
Lightroom works differenlty than any other software you may have used in the past. You would be wise to eliminate from your brain your ideas about how to manage files and edits that might have been present in your mind from your use of other photo editing software. You would be wise to start using Lightroom with a clean slate in your mind about how things work. Your statements above show clearly that you are thinking that Lightroom works the same as other photo managing/editing software, and this will lead you/already has lead you in the wrong direction, and in harmful directions.
So wipe the slate clean. Prepare to learn how to manage files and manage edits from a clean slate.
Things that are different about Lightroom
Lightroom is completely non-destructive editing. This means that the pixels in your original photos are NEVER (that's NEVER, a very strong word, chosen intentionally to mean, well it means NEVER) changed by Lightroom. This implies that you do NOT need to make a copy of a photo before you start editing it. Making a copy of a photo before you start editing it is a complete waste of time and disk space. (Also see side comment below)
Edits are not stored by saving a copy of the edited photo on your hard disk, as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements would do. Edits are not, by default, stored in the photo file itself. Edits are stored in the Lightroom catalog, which is a database file. The edits are essentially stored as numbers (example: Exposure +0.5, contrast +20, Highlights –15) in the catalog. You cannot turn this method of saving edits in the catalog off. As a result, if you close Lightroom after you perform some edits, and then open Lightroom again at some later time, your edits will be in the catalog, and displayed for you automatically, without you taking any specific "save" action or without you taking any specific action to tell Lightroom to display the edits.
However, some people make the critical mistake of removing the photos from Lightroom after the edits are completed ... this also removes the edits from Lightroom and (in Lightroom's default mode of operation) the edits are now lost forever. Even if you use an option in Lightroom to store the edits with the file, this mode of operation requires you to do more work and you recieve less benefits from Lightroom, than simply leaving the photos in Lightroom. Removing photos from Lightroom after the edits are completed is highly unrecommended.
Photos are never stored in Lightroom. Photos are always stored on your hard disk. They are stored wherever you put them, or where you instruct Lightroom to put them on your hard disk during Import. Lightroom maintains a link in its database to the file's location on disk. As a result, if you move or rename or delete your photos (or the folders that contain them) outside of Lightroom, then Lightroom cannot find the photos and you can no longer work with them in Lightroom. There are ways to fix this, but the best solution IN MY OPINION, is to no longer manage/organize your photos via operating system/folders/file names and to no longer manage/organize your photos by moving them from here to there after importing them; rather you should manage/organize your photos using Lightroom tools such as keywords and other metadata and then you not only have more powerful tools for managing/organizing than you have in your operating system, but the issue regarding Lightroom not being able to find your photos goes away
Side comment: in item 1 I said you don't have to make a copy before you edit the photos. However you do need to make backups (identical copies) of your original photos and catalog file on a different hard disk. This is to protect against the future situation where your hard disk will fail, resulting in the loss of your photos, and to protect against accidental erasure of your original photos. It is not to protect against Lightroom changing the pixels of your original photos, which as I said, Lightroom does not do.

Similar Messages

How can one convert a PSD file into a RAW or DNG file?

Lightroom does not assemble panoramas. One must use an external editor,eg, Photoshop Elements, to construct a panorama. Lightroom prepares the selected images by converting them to PSD files before sending them to the Elements Editor. When the panorama is achieved, it cannot be saved as a RAW nor DNG file even if either of those formats were the original data format type in Lightroom. Thus when the panorama is imported back into Lightroom it is brought back as the PSD or something of your choosing; but you cannot choose a RAW nor DNG format. The result is a folder in Lightroom with a hodge-podge of formats.
Question: How can the PSD file panorama be converted into a RAW or DNG file in this transfer from an outside editor to Lightroom?

That simply cannot be done. The conversion has to take place in order for Photoshop to create the panorama. Photoshop, by itself, without Camera Raw, cannot edit raw image data. By the time an image is opened in Photoshop is no longer raw image data. Photoshop is not capable of saving raw image data. The best thing to do is perform is much of the work as possible using using Lightroom. When I do a panorama image, I highlight all of the images and use the menu option to match total exposures. Then I do as much as possible on those images in Lightroom. Once the images leave Lightroom the raw editing is finished. Anything from that point onward that is done in Photoshop must be saved to a different file format.

Cannot save files from Camera Raw in JPG format.

Since running updates to my Adobe Elements 10 program recently I cannot save the files from Camera Raw in JPG format any longer. I can save the files in other formats but not in JPG format. I need to save some files in JPG format to submit for a photographic course I am doing.
Pleasae assist.
My emailo contact is as below
[email protected]

Change to 8 bit for jpeg and then click open image.
Click to view

Lightroom 5 cannot export files in original Raw format (LR 5.4, Mac, OS 10.9.4).

A client has the following problem: When trying to export files in the original Raw format (.CR2), the operation failed and a dialog informs us that "Some export operations were not performed". We can export JPEGs just fine.
After lots of testing, this is what we discovered: The problem does not appear to be catalog-based; we run into the same problem using a test catalog. The export operation works fine, however, with the same test catalog and images on two other machines, and it even works fine on the same machine with a new user admin account that we created.
So it appears to be something associated with the user account, , or with how LR is interacting with the user account, but I cannot figure out what it might be. We can copy the Raw files when using the Finder to do so. But not via Lightroom. Any thoughts, ideas of suggestion would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Sean

As part of your testing make sure you've tried exporting JPGs from the same folder as the CR2s you're exporting as original, and export JPGs from CR2s to the same folder as you're exporting your originals. This would test LR's read and write permissions from and to the folders being used.
From this document you can see that all the LR files other than the program, are under the /Users folder with different values possible for each user, so the difference could be that the users that work are using the original LR defaults, if you have just started using LR with them after you started having this problem, or at least that the user with the problem has some oddball settings that are interfering with Export as Original.
Preference and other file locations in Lightroom 5
You can test for the Preferences being off by either copying the preferences from a user that has the problem to a user that doesn't have the problem--probably through an external or common folder, or be deleting the preferences file from the user that has the problem and see if it resolves. Moving the preferences file or renaming it may be better than deleting it if no change is seen, then you can restore the preferences back by moving or renaming the file back to the original location and name.

Manche RAW thumbnails (DNG-Format) werden seit Mavericks im Finder zum Teil nicht angezeigt .., Manche RAW thumbnails (DNG-Format) werden seit Mavericks im Finder zum Teil nicht angezeigt ..

seit der Umstellung auf OS X 10.9.1 kann ich den Finder nicht mehr dazu bewegen, mir meine DNG-Dateien als Miniaturen anzuzeigen. Das Problem besteht in allen Ansichten. Auch in der Spaltenansicht wird keine Vorschau angezeigt, wenn man eine RAW-Datei auswählt. Vorschau öffnet die Bilder nach wie vor problemlos.
Meine DNGs kommen von einer Sony DSC-RX100 und werden in Lightroom bearbeitet und dann als DNG'S exportiert. Die RAW aus der Fotokarte sind sichtbar, nicht aber die exportierten DNG's nach der Bearbeitung in Lightroom.
Wer kennt eine Lösung, oder weiss ob es derzeit eine Lösun güberhaupt gibt.
LG

Hallo ich habe das gleiche Problem und wurde von Adobe an Apple verwiesen. Die Frage ist nur, wie kann ich Apple von diesem Problem berichten.
Ich finde keine Möglichkeit und bin daher wirklich sauer über ein Produkt, dass anscheinend die einfachsten Dinge, die Windows hinbekommt, nicht zu Stande bringt.
Das Programm Aperture sagt übrigens zu meinen DNG Files, dass es sie nicht lesen kann.

Embed original RAW file in DNG?

Is there any way to set the DNG conversion in Lightroom to embed the orginal RAW file upon import (similar to how it works in the DNG converter program that is put out by Adobe)? It appears that the Lightroom DNG converter will only convert the RAW file to DNG without embedding the original...any suggestions or comments??? Thank you in advance.

Maybe I've misunderstood the question or else I'm missing something here.
I have Adobe's standalone DNG converter on my Desktop which I used to use previously, and yes, there is an option of embedding the original RAW file which I chose to use. At the end of the day this process produced on file - the dng - and buried within it was the original RAW.
I had reservations about LR's convert to dng process in the beginning but am now beginning to see the advantages of it. When I convert my RAW file to dng I now get 2 files in the original image folder - one being the ORIGINAL Raw image, the second the dng conversion. So now I have the best of two worlds, and although it takes up more HD than previous I'm beginning to like it this way. Some posts on this issue seem to imply that in the conversion to dng process the original Raw is somehow being lost and this quite simply isn't the case.

Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?

I was under the impression that original raw files were the biggest possible. I appear to be very wrong. Why are 'saved as' .psd files so much bigger than original raw nef files?
I'm beginning to think that saving them as psd is a bad idea.
Yes, though I've heard all the arguments of keepng the original raw files (For ex. Did you throw away the negatives when you were using film) I se eno purpose in keeping them. Once I've made the initial adjustments--cropping, color correction etc. I don't feel a need to ever go back and never do. Most of my work is done in Photoshop and I like it that way--but suddenly finding myself with such huge files doesn't appeal to me at all--and other formats like tif...well never mind for now.

Good point made c.pfaffenbichler however, my thinking is this--there is time spent on the raw file and then there is much more time spent on (usually a psd) the file once in Photoshop. For me to then go back to the orignal raw file, after having worked on it on PS would mean getting rid of all the work (larger amount of work, time wise and artistic wise) done on PS which seems pointless. Although the psd file does show your layers and stuff it only shows the end results of that layer. It does not show from where to where you pointed your brush, from what point to what point you changed the color or part of an image etc. etc.Anyhow I understand why most people keep their raw files, but this is the main reason why I do not. It would mean hours of work on an image you already worked on (and usually were satisfied with) to perhaps make some minor alteration. Also please note that though I was noce a pro photog, no I do it mostly for fun. Getting the exact red in my Coca Cola can has never been of importance. On the other hand, if there were a way of working on a raw file within Photoshop and keep it (save it as) a raw file equivalent, then I would absolutely do so.

Aperture 3 Processes Original RAW Files into a Grainy Mess

I just installed Aperture 3, updated to 3.0.3, and imported a few of my photos (taken with a Sony Alpha) from iPhoto 09 and a few from a Canon 5D Mk II. My iPhoto Edited, Raw files process, load, and the original appears. However, my Original RAW files continue to process and look extremely grainy. What can I do?

Do you have some sort of import preset set?

When round tripping with photoshop cc, i get a saved psd file with my original raw,the problem is these are high file sizes and taking a lot of space,can i stop this?

when round tripping with photoshop cc, i get a saved psd file with my original raw,the problem is these are high file sizes and taking a lot of space,can i stop this?

That's not the workflow that I use. I have my Lightroom preferences set to create TIF images when going to Photoshop. I keep the original raw file and the TIF image (usually reduced to an 8-bit image) and only export JPEG's when they are needed to send to a lab or to send to someone over the Internet. JPEG files are highly compressed. I only create them when they are needed, and they are discarded as soon as they have been used for their intended purpose. I keep the raw file and the Photoshop-created TIF in my library. This requires extra disk space. But I always have the highest quality files available.

Why no 'Edit Original' with raw or dng files?

Is there a reason Lightroom does not allow the ability to use an external editor on the original raw/dng file? Why force people to use the Capture NX raw converter if they would like to use their camera specific converter instead?

This is a great point. There are many instances where I need to use a camera manufacturer's conversion software because I am unable to get similar results in Lightroom (Still a problem in LR3 - many posts about this in these forums).
I was going to write about a tip for a workaround, but instead I actually uncovered a very unfortunate behavior in LR3.
Previously, in LR2.x, you could drag any thumbnail from the Grid view onto the app of your choice in the dock. It would immediately open the original file (including RAW images) in that editor, and you could then save a Tiff to be re-imported into LR, or whatever you wanted to do. It was great flexibility, and got around having the formal ability to assign an external editor for RAW files (which by the way I agree, is necessary functionality, and should be included).
NOW, in LR3, this behavior has been shut down. You can no longer drag thumbnails from the grid view onto an external editor.
Adobe Lightroom team - this is a huge mistake. Please restore the old functionality. You should know - trying as hard as you do, your RAW rendering is still not the only game in town. I own your product, along with five other RAW editing applications. Sometimes I need to try each one to see how a particular image works out. I still prefer to use Lightroom as my cataloging software. This will change if you start to close things down to force users to stay in your ecosystem.
Apple Aperture takes a similar approach - when you drag an image onto an application, you only open a jpeg preview of that image, not the original RAW file. This is one of the reasons I ditched Aperture and moved to Lightroom. I liked the flexibility. Now that this has been taken away, it gives me another reason to consider passing on this upgrade. Please give this some thought. You do not have all the answers for RAW rendering, and realistically, unless camera manufacturers standardize, you probably never will. Give us back our flexibility, or better yet, build it in formally as the original poster suggested.

ACR Makes Changes to Original RAW File

I think Ive seen this explained before, but it didnt, and still doesnt make any sense to me. Whenever I open a RAW image in ACR and make changes, including saving as a jpg to another folder, all the changes are made in my RAW file. Why does ACR do this? I keep reading that ACR does not do this, but it does (seem) to do this. The fix is to open the RAW image back up in ACR after I have saved the jpg, and undo all the changes. I shouldnt have to do this, and no other software Ive used to process RAW images does this. Im Baffled.
By the way, Im new to CS3, but come from years of using Paint Shop Pro and Nikon Capture.

Okay, it looks like I need to clarify my oxymoronic statement. First of all, I need to stipulate that I use XMP files with my raw images when I use the original original raw files and not DNG files. And since this is the Camera Raw forum I was talking specifically about raw images. So in that context of how I use raw files, the raw file is not changed at all. The metadata changes are stored in the external XMP file and the original raw file remains unchanged. I might be wrong, but I have assumed that this is the way most people have their workflow established. But maybe I am wrong.
In the case of DNG files, ACR is able to write the metadata to the header of the DNG file without altering the picture data. Hopefully this will clarify my statement.
Yes, I also realize that Pentax and some other camera makers offer DNG as a native raw format. The same DNG statement that I made applies to those images as well.

How can I REPLACE original RAW files with JPG's and keep my 'Develop mode' edits?

An image describing my problem:
http://i.imgur.com/hcqMYkv.jpg
(Lightroom 5)
'edits' = Edits made in develop mode.
'CR2' = My RAW image file format.
I have existing CR2's with edits for them saved in Lightroom.
I want to replace the CR2's with JPG's, and do nothing else. I want those JPG's to inherit the CR2's edits, but I DO NOT want the edits to be permanently applied to the image.
If I export the CR2's (which have edits) to JPG's, the edits will be permanently applied to them. I do not want this.
If I export the CR2's to JPG's without the edits, I have no way of getting the edits back and will have to redo the work if I use that photo again.
Any solutions? I've been trying for a while and have no idea how to do this.
Q: Why not keep the CR2's?
A: I am uploading these files to an online host (S3) as my primary storage method and uploading CR2's takes way too long with my internet speeds. Furthermore, online storage costs money.
Q: Why not shoot with JPGs instead of shooting raw?
A: I do my initial edits with the raw files and then archive them as JPG's to save storage space. They won't be raw anymore if I apply future edits, but I still have the option of retouching them from the 'original' state and still have my old edits preserved.

Probably the best thing for you to do is simply use lossy DNG format (e.g. export as, or convert to..): raw data is re-formatted with jpeg compression (full-rez or reduced-rez), but all raw settings apply.
If you insist on trying to have a true jpeg file with (mostly) raw settings, then:
The simplest way I can think of to do it without a script or plugin:
* Reset the raw photo (consider preserving things that don't translate well, like profile-based lens corrections and white balance).
* Export jpeg
* Un-reset the image (e.g. using edit history or pre-reset snapshot).
* Sync settings from raw to jpeg (note: omit settings that don't transfer well, or that were not reset..).
* Optionally: Delete raw
To automate/streamline would require a script or plugin.

Significant reduction in file size from Camera Raw to DNG

Hi,
I am currently testing the conversion of Leaf camera raw files into DNGs for a photographer's archive. I am hoping to convert all of the mos files to DNGs because Leaf Capture and the Leaf Raw Converter are not being updated and because the photographer wants to have an Adobe centered workflow. In my testing I discovered that converting mos files to DNGs through ACR 8.4 and LightRoom 5.4 resulted in a reduction of file size by nearly 50%. A 44.5MB mos file became a 23.6MB DNG. From what I've read only about 15-20% of the camera raw file should be lost and all of the data lost should be propietary.
Here-in lies my quesiton, is there any way that I can track or determine exactly what sort of compression is being done to the mos file and what information is or is not travelling in the conversion to DNG?
These are the settings I have used for converting raw files to DNGs:
ACR:
JPEG Preview: Medium Size
Embed fast load data
Don't use lossy compression
Preserve pixel counts
Don't embed original
LIGHTROOM 5.4:
Only Convert Raw files
Delete originals after successful conversion
File Extension DNG
Compatibility Camera Raw 7.1 and later
Jpeg Preview Medium Size
Embed Fast Load Data
Thanks!

50%? - I thought we were talking about 15-20%?
In my first post I questioned why I was seeing a reduction in file size of 50% when according to forums and articles I've read I should only be seing a 15-20% reduction in file size. I then wondered what data I might be losing, which you addressed.
Same as what? - what were the results.
I was referring to testing I preformed on camera raw files produced during different years (all mos). I converted all files with the same ACR and LR settings and found that the DNGs always reflected a 50% reduction in file size. This test suggests that any conversion issues is not necessarily related to how the camera raw files might have been differently built across years.
Adobe's raw data compression is touted by DNG zealots, but I haven't scrutinized it enough to corroborate or refute.., but my experience is that reduction is relatively marginal. All of this assumes original is also compressed - if uncompressed in original source, savings would be large.
The files I am dealing with are definitely uncompressed which could account for the large reduction in file size. I didn't realize until I posted to this thread that converting to a DNG results in a compression of the original image data. I understand that this compression is supposed to be lossless like a lossless compression to a tiff and thus result in no decrease in image quality or harm to the original image. I am baffled by how it is possible that any compression of a file (especially by 50%) could not result in a loss of important data but I will accept that it is possible to have a truly lossless compression and that the size reduction I am seeing could be a result of all of the different processes a file undergoes that you have outlined.
I looked into the effects that backwards compatibility has on the conversion process which might interest you http://dpbestflow.org/DNG#backwards-compatibility
I also posted to luminous landscape's forums http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89101.new;topicseen#new
Although it wouldn't surprise me if the DNG conversion process tossed the xmp-like metadata, and kept the original stuff, but it would surprise me if it tossed the original stuff - but as I said before, I haven't scrutinized for completeness so I don't know.
I've done testing in which I converted .mos camera raw files with their sidecar xmps and without their sidecar xmps. My tests revealed that the DNG definitely carries over xmp metadata although it is not clear to me exactly how it is carried and if anything is lost.

How to combine Camera-Raw processed files to be viewed within Windows Explorer as processed

      The problem I have with camera processed files is that when viewed within Explorer what you did on the file, the crop, and other effects are not visible within Windows Explorer. What is visible there is the original file--this seems to be true of the original nef file in my case. The change does appear if you save it as a .tif, .dng or .psd but not the NEF. But if you were to open again the NEF file and the RAW Window opens you can see your changes immediately.
        I know it is because with an original raw file nothing has been done to the image except give it instructions so to speak but Bridge does see it as such so why not let Explorer (Or other viewers, for ex. XnView) view it as such as well? Perhaps this is more a Microsoft Windows issue or what-have-you but I thought I would start to present it here first.
Where's the question? The question is not actually for someone to explain why this is so, I think I may understand this a little but rather the question is, would it be possible to let other software such as Explorer see the raw processed file--to let it see it as Bridge sees it? Yeah I guess this may be a Windows issue but.....
   Why does this bother me? Since I don't use Photoshop or Bridge professionally I view images more often in Explorer then I do in Bridge or PS (The former is instantaneously viewable while the latter take way to long to open--and Bridge vs. XnView needs an extra step.)
        Side note: Sometimes I feel I am wasting my time and yours in writing such silly questions nevertheless they present themselves in my brain and in the process I hope to learn something from it regardless of its silliness/stupidity. It is such questions which at times creates something original, therefore creativity, after all, does it not? (Or so I tell myself in order to justify it all :-)

You can't...
Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras
Camera Raw-compatible Adobe applications

Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you
Nick

Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)
Thanks
Nick

Saving processed files in original raw (or DNG?) format

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for