What happened to .xmp files?

Question

I have noticed recently that my Bridge program (cs4) has not been automatically exporting .xmp files into the folder where I store my images. I have been doing a lot of reading, but still can't seem to find a solid answer as far as what to do.
I have figured out how to export .xmp files into another folder, but what's the point of that? I want the metadata for my images to stay with my images. When I move them from folder to folder using Bridge, the xmp files used to move also, so I never lost my metadata.
I also empty my cache fairly often. I noticed that Bridge was no longer exporting xmp files when I emptied my cache and ALL my metadata that I had added to my images was gone, just like that.
I am a photographer and need that information to go somewhere permanent automatically, not in the cache which is supposed to store temporary file information.
Anyone have any idea?
Thanks so much!

Answer 1

Tai Lao wrote:
Your post #29 is completely blank
Strange, I responded using email and this normally functions well, maybe the chance in formatting and quoting did not get through?
I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you. 
How could you think of that...
here is a copy of the mail, hope the formatting keeps clear!
>> Omke Oudeman wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I understood the producing of magenta colorcast is a fault by
>> Pentax and the recovery utility does only work on original Pentax DNG, the
>> PEF files already have some compression and don't display all the sensor
>> data, Right?
> 
> Wrong, very wrong.  But that is definitely off topic.
It is what I understood (after briefly scanning through page) from this post that advices to shoot in K20 generated DNG instead of the PEF format.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/67532-how-use-k20s-black-pixels- hidden-dngs.html
>> Omke Oudeman wrote:
>> 
>> …I did something else, I opened 2 files in ACR, one the original CR2 and the
>> other the DNG conversion of it. ............ I could not find one single >>difference between both files…
> 
> That is irrelevant.  The issue is that there is some information inside the
> raw files that is not currently used either by the Pentax software or by
> Adobe, but that a third party (Gordon B. Good in this case) was able to
> utilize in order to improve the quality of certain converted raw files.
For your files in certain conditions at high iso this seems to be the case, the DNG files converted by Adobe DNG converter do miss the border pixels needed for the script from GordonBGood.
I tried to download that application but it seems only for Windows, how do you manage to use it?? Thought you have given up on Windows long time ago??
Nevertheless I also tried the apply image method you quoted from Bruce Fraser in an other post, using subtract with offset 128 and both perfectly the same.
I do agree that Raw converters from nowadays can get more out of the Raw data then they did 8 years ago, trying an 8 year old raw file gives a much better result (but then you also have to keep in mind that our knowledge and skills in Digital imaging have grown in combination with better color management understanding and good calibration soft and hardware is also due to this!)
Also I'm not afraid my benefit from the future Raw converters will differ if I use DNG instead of the original Raw, but that is my personal believe. The result I get nowadays for combination of DNG and PS are already more then satisfying, and sure it will be better in the future but for that I have also faith in DNG :-)
> Yes, I use PSDs exclusively.  However, if you don't think TIFF will be around
> in 15 years, why do you think DNG will?  After all, *+Adobe owns the TIFF
> format+* as well as the PSD format.  
> 
> If you trust Adobe to keep the DNG alive for 15 more years, why don't you
> trust that same corporation to keep supporting TIFF, a format for which they
> paid darned good money to acquire?
That is just a question of the market, as you could see that our young friend that started this post never uses it and I do hear more voices saying they don't use it or don't see the use for it.  Eventually there will be no need for letting seldom used formats taking space in menu's and applications.
DNG however is still talk of the town, whether you like it or not. And therefore more likely to be around in 15 years time. But you are right, If I was to know about what was going on in 15 years from now I would not be a photographer but a fortuneteller and in my free time bathing in countless money :-) :-)
> Another one of the reasons why I don't like DNGs is, number one, that they
> take an awful lot longer to open than the raw files.
That I still can't understand unless you have chosen to use the original raw file included and created a double size for the file. But as stated in earlier post, not the case on my system.
> Not that any of this—or anything else in the world for that matter—should be
> an issue for me then. 
Statistically you have lived the greatest part of your life and knowing your health is not something to be jealous of (to put it mildly) your statement about this also is something only time will learn.
Let's wish we still can have a long period for our little chats, agreed or not.
I will give up on getting you to DNG (for now as it is...) :-) :-)
Vriendelijke groet,
Con cordiales saludos
感谢你和亲切的问候