LR - embed fast load data and embed original raw file

Lemaildetom

Lemaildetom

Messages
2,842
Name
thomas
Edit My Images
Yes
Just found these two option in the file handling tab of the preference menu in LR.

The first is ticked by default the second isn't.
What do they actually do?
 
Both options are to do with converting to DNG format,

Embed Fast Load Data speeds up the generation of previews.

Embed Original Raw File will embed the original file within the DNG file at the expense of a larger file size.
 
PhilH04 said:
Both options are to do with converting to DNG format,

Embed Fast Load Data speeds up the generation of previews.

Embed Original Raw File will embed the original file within the DNG file at the expense of a larger file size.
Click to expand...

As it is non desctructive and the raw file is not modified.

Where does this extra info get embed? Into each preview you create? Into the catalogue itself?

If you embed the original raw file would this double up your size? And what would be the advantage of that?
 
It is embedded in the DNG file if you choose to convert on import. Nothing to do with LR or its functions.
 
•


I don't think that the conversion to DNG is a good move as such.
It is useful only to make proprietary RAW file a "universal" file.

Most recent converters are capable to open proprietary RAW file.
 
Then, any reason why i would like to convert on import?

I guess it's not a good idea?
 
It really is up to you, Adobe would've us believe that it is a future proof format etc.

There are advantages depending upon how you work, for example you can include the the instructions for any adjustments made within the DNG making the file portable without having to remember to include the XMP sidecar file etc. Embedding the original will increase the DNG file size but also means that in the future you will be able to extract it... None of the said advantages of using the DNG format have persuaded me to change.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Then, any reason why i would like to convert on import? I guess it's not a good idea?
Click to expand...


One way Lr maker could extend its users base was either to accept
RAWs for more proprietary RAW files or to standardise them all to
a "digital negative" so it could be taken in their suite.
  • RAWs will import faster in Lr than DNGs but DNGs will develop
    a tad faster.
  • RAW data in incorporated in the DNG file and that file is rewrita-
    ble as it will contain all the tweaks performed on the data.
So far, I was always reluctant to go the DNG way — call it adobophobia!
All the pros I know did regret their move. There is a serious price to pay
with DNGs that the maker will, for some reasons, not tell you: stitching
and stacking — among others — are very difficult — read almost impos-
sible — with that DNG format.

Since most proper converters will take an always greater number of RAWs,
unless your files are from a very exotic maker, just don't. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Cheers kodiak, that summarize it well for me. I'll stay away from dng then! I was having a look at all the opton in the lightroom preference menu i didn't know!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
stitching
and stacking — among others — are very difficult — read almost impos-
sible — with that DNG format.
Click to expand...
I won't use the DNG format but that statement is not entirely true, DNG is subject to the same restraints as any raw format file and many applications will in fact stitch and stack a DNG file.

The conversion instructions can indeed be written into the file if you so choose, but they are not baked into the file so you can return to your 'converters' base interpretation of the file.

It is still not a workflow decision that I advocate though... I still need convincing on the formats future proof status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top