Skip to main content
Noel Carboni
Noel Carboni
Legend
May 18, 2011
Open for Voting

P: Add a Camera Raw Option to Prevent Writing Back into Input Files

  • May 18, 2011
  • 55 replies
  • 2025 views

Given:

Under some conditions Camera Raw writes data back into (overwrites) its input files. Example: A JPEG file.

Under other conditions Camera Raw maintains this same kind of information in a separate place (e.g., Sidecar XMP or central database). Example: A CR2 or NEF file.

Assuming one uses Camera Raw to open out-of-camera original files as many photographers do, depending on what mode one has captured the images in, Adobe is inconsistent about whether to keep its hands off them or overwrite them... This seems to be because some formats are proprietary and some are well documented. From a programmer's perspective, this makes perfect sense.

Trouble is, from a user's perspective, this behavior cannot be described as anything but inconsistent.

Personally, I do not want my original out-of-camera JPEGs updated/rewritten under any circumstances.

Camera Raw will not touch a proprietary raw file, such as a Canon .CR2 or Nikon .NEF. There's a whole process for remembering settings in a separate database or sidecar XMP files. So far so good.

However, if you open a JPEG, TIFF, or DNG through Camera Raw, data WILL automatically be written back into it to tell another run of Camera Raw in the future what settings you used - without the software ever having warned you it will do so.

It is true that some functions EXPLICITLY rewrite input files. You can ask the software to write new thumbnails back into DNG files, for example. This seems fine - the user has instructed the software to overwrite the file, and the user is in charge, after all.

Overwriting/rewriting an input file without being instructed to do so is NON-INTUITIVE BEHAVIOR for any application. Simply put, I would not expect an input file to be overwritten by Camera Raw.

And we do see that it causes people confusion and surprise from time to time. You may right now be reading this in disbelief. I recommend you go test it for yourself (on a copy of one of your original JPEG files).

The original file being overwritten is a chief reason why I don't configure Photoshop to open my JPEGs through Camera Raw.

Adobe:

Please give those of us who don't want our input files overwritten an option for using the database/XMP sidecar instead in EVERY case.

Thank you.

-Noel

    55 replies

    Show previous replies
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    June 18, 2012
    Hi Noel, I can relate. Consider casting a vote on this one too:

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

    I think this issue qualifies as a longstanding issue of the "low hanging fruit" variety.
    Noel Carboni
    Noel CarboniAuthor
    Legend
    June 9, 2012
    Sigh. Now we have Camera Raw 7 and no fix for this.

    I think we can see how well Adobe listens to its customers.

    -Noel
    Noel Carboni
    Noel CarboniAuthor
    Legend
    October 27, 2011
    Zalman,

    Clearly you understand the concept of never wanting an original file overwritten...

    The software is MALFUNCTIONING as it is now.

    But if you're worried over consistency with past (incorrect) operation confusing existing users, just add the new "Never Overwrite Original Files" option I mention here and default it to off. You can still use embedded info if you find it, but this would prevent you from writing embedded info back into ANY FILE TYPE.

    This is not hard to understand!

    Adobe presents Photoshop is a professional product - and I'm sorry to be blunt - but honestly you folks treat operations on your users' files in a very amateur way indeed!

    -Noel
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    October 27, 2011
    |> I'm not sure if this works in Lightroom, but if not, it could be regarded as a bug and just fixed.

    It does not work in Lightroom. I like the idea of regarding it as a bug to be fixed. (there have been several forum discussions about it, but I don't recall any comment from Adobe)

    There is a partial solution for Lightroom users:

    xEmP

    In the case of DNG and RGB, it depends on xmp being 1st written to the source file, therefore you can't make them read-only. xmp will then be extracted and written as sidecar if changed. So, it solves the problem of a smaller (sidecar) file for settings/metadata that is only modified when necessary. It does not solve the problem of writing back to originals, or storing in common database. It also writes xmp-like files for virtual copies so they can be backed up and restored if necessary.
    F
    FeedbackCommunityMember
    Inspiring
    October 27, 2011
    Camera Raw will write sidecar .xmp files for DNGs if the DNG file is readonly. (I use this in my workflow as my main camera is DNG native and I do not want my raw originals getting modified.) I'm not sure if this works in Lightroom, but if not, it could be regarded as a bug and just fixed. This is a small step toward giving users full control over where metadata is stored, but it can help quite a bit.

    There is certainly awareness within Adobe of the workflow issues discussed here. I agree that embedded XMP causes pain for some workflows and the lack of user control is regrettable. Unfortunately the easy changes we can make look to introduce more problems than they solve and it is hard to do something winning in just Camera Raw and Lightroom as a strong selling point of XMP is that it interoperates well across a vast range of products from Adobe and other vendors. If the other apps don't also respect the constraints, the metadata ends up with the same field stored in multiple places and becomes ambiguous or inconsistent.

    -Z-
    A
    Anonymous
    October 17, 2011
    I don't mind the default behavior, it's just that for some use cases it makes much much more sense to use sidecar files. A here be dragons warning that tells the user what the option is for, and what the risks are behind it should be sufficient. It's like Apple telling iPhone developers that they can not use the volume buttons to take photos, because it confuses the user. Yes, perhaps, but banning a very successful application from the App Store just because there is a hidden website that users of this program can visit, so that they can activate that feature? I assume when they go through such lengths they very well want that feature and know of the consequences! I don't even mind editing a config file hidden somewhere on the hard disk.
    A
    Anonymous
    October 17, 2011
    My backup solution does not allow for differential backups... every file that is modified even one bit has to be saved again (which takes about a minute). That is a pretty big issue, I can't just go back and update a couple of tags. Sometimes even regenerating the thumbnails as I moved the catalog location meant I had to reupload a huge portion of my library (taking a few months, which meant had I lost my drive many files would have been lost!). In an ideal world we don't need sidecar files. In reality it is a useful thing for some of us, so why not give us that option?
    TheDigitalDog
    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 7, 2011
    >So, you don't' have any of the apps that you used on those files 10 years ago?

    Sure, they just can’t be run! Are you a Mac user? Can’t run OS9 on Intel hardware. Can’t run Rosetta under Lion.

    You have 8 track tapes? Great. You have a machine that can play them? No, SOL. Got any files on Syquest drivers or floppies but no hardware to access that data? SOL.

    And yet, TIFFs I created in 1990 in Photoshop 1.0.7 can be opened TODAY on the latest hardware and OS. In dozens upon dozens of different software packages. Thanks to it being an open, non proprietary format. DCS files, PCD files, hosts of others? No such luck. Not good, especially when pixels I created 22 years ago the same way are accessible. Pixels I created 10 years ago are not. DNG is the TIFF of raw data (its a variant of TIFF). Based on the history, I’ll stick with that for archive of my precious raw data for obvious (to me) reasons.

    Sticking with proprietary raw, at least in several examples for me, is like having a 4x5 B&W neg and no enlarger or silver paper to make prints.
    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    R
    RobertJG60
    Participating Frequently
    September 7, 2011
    So, you don't' have any of the apps that you used on those files 10 years ago? Look around, I'm sure you can find them somewhere.
    R
    RobertJG60
    Participating Frequently
    September 5, 2011
    Noel Carboni asked:

    Robert, have you actually TRIED using DNG files for the task, given your processes?

    Yes, some photographers insist on sending us dng even though we've asked for camera raw direct for the camera without any changes.

    I can either use the Bridge/ACR method of forcing xmps or burn new dvds using the edited dngs.

    I'd rather just save the xmps.
    Show more replies
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices