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
    R
    RobertJG60
    Participating Frequently
    September 5, 2011
    Writing the data "safely" has never been a concern of mine. I find the xmp files to be vital since I don't have the option of writing the metadata back to the dng (them being read only)

    More than once, I've been able to recreate an edit of an event using the raws and the xmp file which allowed me to pick up where I left off.

    If the originals were dng, this would have been impossible. I would have had to re-edit the job from scratch.

    Fyi, Lightroom 3 doesn't remove the read only, it returns an error writing metadata.

    And I haven't hit on a consistent set of changes to make and change back. Apparently, acr thinks some changes aren't worth saving.
    R
    RobertJG60
    Participating Frequently
    September 5, 2011
    Interesting. The reason is built in to the sentence that you commented on yet you ask why not anyway.

    It can't take the place of what I'm using if I have to treat it differently.

    Geez
    TheDigitalDog
    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 5, 2011
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3245182:

    >It would be great to have an option whether to imbed XMP metadata into DNG file (as it is write now), or create XMP sidecar files as Lightroom does for proprietary RAWs.

    Answer why its not useful:

    Because it's half-baked in backup terms - you can't simply dismiss a swathe of LR work as "image relationships properties" - and it forgets that one valuable aspect of DNG is precisely that it is designed so you can safely write metadata to the format (though you'd be on your own if you do so to your only copy of the image....). Development time spent on sidecars for DNGs (JPEGs too, and why not TIFs?) would be unavailable for more important enhancements.

    John Beardy

    Uodate: Since you changed your post while I was writing.....

    'And by the way, ACR can be forced to act like this. If you mark your DNGs as "read-only" ACR will not touch them, but will create sidecar XMPs.
    While Lightroom just removes "read-only" attribute and overwrites original file without shame'

    Then use ACR..... LR's ethos is to start from scratch, not slavishly replicate earlier tools.
    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    Noel Carboni
    Noel CarboniAuthor
    Legend
    September 5, 2011
    I guess the question I didn't have answered before was "what does the software do when you have a read-only DNG file?"

    I just did some experimentation on some proprietary raw files, along with JPG and DNG files, making some of the DNG and JPG files read-only (but the folder still read/write), using Camera Raw 6.4.1, and here's what I found...

    When configured to use the central database, Camera Raw did NOT attempt to write back into the DNG files, and instead went to the central database to store/retrieve conversion parameters. Consistently, it used sidecar XMP files in the same folder as the DNG files when configured to use sidecar files instead of the central database.

    It emitted an error when Camera Raw tried to write back into the JPG files unconditionally.

    Clearly the DNG files are being treated differently than JPEGs. This may answer Robert's point and it does make Andrew's question valid...

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

    -Noel
    L
    Lee Jay
    Inspiring
    September 5, 2011
    He did explain why not. He has read-only DNG files and would like to archive just the metadata in the XMP files, which are a few orders of magnitude smaller than the image files. That would represent a substantial savings in both space and time especially since he has the image data archived already.
    TheDigitalDog
    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 5, 2011
    Adobe feels comfortable writing back to lots of non proprietary file formats and uncomfortable writing back to proprietary formats they don’t control. That’s not a difficult concept for both legal and other reasons. Since there are oh so many proprietary camera formats that continue to come onto the scene every time a new camera is produced, the idea makes a bit of sense. You’re ‘stuck’ with sidecar files. But none of the above explains why DNG isn’t a valid raw choice. Its a different chose but not valid?
    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    Noel Carboni
    Noel CarboniAuthor
    Legend
    September 5, 2011
    Andrew, I suspect the difference Robert is sensing is the core concept of this thread - that the Adobe software feels comfortable in writing back into the DNG file, while proprietary camera raw files are "hands off", but that's just a guess.

    Some people really want their raw files to be untouched. This is not a difficult concept.

    -Noel
    TheDigitalDog
    TheDigitalDog
    Inspiring
    September 5, 2011
    >dng is not a valid raw choice unless I can treat it like any other raw file.

    Why not?
    Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
    R
    RobertJG60
    Participating Frequently
    September 5, 2011
    Lightroom needs to be patch so that xmp files can be generated for use with dng files.

    dng is not a valid raw choice unless I can treat it like any other raw file. I can't.

    Our raw files are archived on dvd (read only). the edit data is archived as xmp in another location. I can use acr to force the xmp files after the edit but it would be better if lightroom didn't arbitrarily refuse to do it. (It did it in beta).

    I'm not interested in hearing from anyone who wishes to argue that eliminated xmp files is a good thing. It's isn't. They're tiny and they can be used to recreate an edit long after the dngs have been removed from a catalog.

    Did I mention that our raw files are archived in read only format before they're edited? They're received from photographers on dvds and those discs become our archive.

    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    June 30, 2011
    You bet, Noel.

    The common objection to this 'Idea' seems to be the argument that sidecars are a workaround for proprietary raws, but some of us would prefer sidecars regardless, or in your case the central database.

    I think the main barrier to adoption is that Adobe is trying to make in-file xmp a selling point for DNG.

    Technically, this would be nearly trivial to implement.

    I'm hoping but not expecting...,
    Rob
    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