Lightroom concerns, do you have any?

andrewaaa5 wrote in post #3045232
1. Is it wise to try this in one fell swoop? e.g. All 60GB at once?
2. If so, how long do you think this may take?

Just an observation, I was a bit baffled why *.XMP files were not being created for changes that I made to jpgs, but it seems that the *.XMPs are only created for changes made to *.CR2 files. Pressuming that alterations to JPGs are recorded somewhere in the LR DB. ??

If you do it all at one, I'd let it run overnight
I personally would do it little by little... it seemed to choke the first couple times I tried just doing 13gb of images... so I just did it a couple GB at a time and went fine.

Alterations for .jpegs, are written in the database and/or your actual .jpg file (I'm not sure if it writes it in the jpeg by default, or only when you choose to create .xmps too?)

The idea is, I think, that Lightroom doesn't want to touch the proprietary .cr2 and risk corrupting it, so it puts it in sidecar file... .jpg is a pretty standard format, so it can write the data to it safely without making it unreadable by other applications.

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3046097
The idea is, I think, that Lightroom doesn't want to touch the proprietary .cr2 and risk corrupting it, so it puts it in sidecar file... .jpg is a pretty standard format, so it can write the data to it safely without making it unreadable by other applications.

I thought that version 1.0 of Lightroom made "non-destructive" changes to .JPG files as well as RAW files? (hence the original request why changes not being stored in the .xmp file)

Is this not true then?

TeeJay wrote in post #3046130
I thought that version 1.0 of Lightroom made "non-destructive" changes to .JPG files as well as RAW files? (hence the original request why changes not being stored in the .xmp file)

Is this not true then?

It is non-destructive... only instructions are stored in the metadata. If lightroom (or CS3 possibly, or future adobe prodcuts) open the jpeg, they will see the changes. If any other application opens the .jpeg, they will see the unaltered jpeg.

It just the fact the Canon (and most other manufacuturers) have kept their RAW formats proprietary data (not sharing the specifics with other companies like Adobe.) So to avoid accidentaly removing or overwriting data in that .cr2, they use .xmp sidecars.

Jpeg is a well known standard, and they can safely add metadata with almost no risk to screwing anything up. Rest assured it is non-destrcutive, unless you export, and choose to overwrite the original jpeg image.

I've just tried making changes to a standard .JPG file, exiting Lightroom, and checking the original file, and it remains unchanged.

Re-opening Lr and the changes are still showing, so my guess is the changes are being stored in Lightrooms database.

TJ

TeeJay wrote in post #3046185
I've just tried making changes to a standard .JPG file, exiting Lightroom, and checking the original file, and it remains unchanged.

Re-opening Lr and the changes are still showing, so my guess is the changes are being stored in Lightrooms database.

TJ

I just tried it too, and the date modified of the .jpg is changing to todays date, right after I make an edit. Meaning it is writing some data to that .jpg image.

If I then remove those .jpgs from lightroom and then re-import them my changes are still visible... but viewing using windows picture viewer shows un-edited images...

I have lightroom set to write out .xmp files... I don't know if that makes a difference.

Just to add to my last post:

Maybe setting to use .xmp allows Lightrom to write data to the jpegs, (it doesn't create .xmps for jpeg images, but writes data directly.) If you don't have it set to use .xmp, perhaps it only stores the data in the lightroom database.

metadata is an interesting beast. I did some tests last year to see why the ability to read IPTC metadata by some online photo hosting sites appeared to be dependent on the program used to write the data.

With jpg images, photoshop from Version 7 writes the old IPTC data block as well as a new block duplicating the metadata as XMP. This is the same format as the XMP sidecar file. You can see this data if you open a jpg file in a hex editor. Other programs like thumbsplus only wrote the older style block.

Lightroom can write the xmp metadata into a jpg image and use it to redo the adjustments when you load the image. Picassa uses a similar system, although in its case the changes are held in its database. Lightroom has the option of updating the XMP data immediately or not. The changes are applied to the exported image ( File -> Export) of if you open in Photoshop from Lightroom and choose to apply Lightroom adjustments.

andrewaaa5 wrote in post #3045232
1. Is it wise to try this in one fell swoop? e.g. All 60GB at once?

Lightroom seems to run slower the more files you have loaded in its library, will this be improved in future versions?

bbc14f wrote in post #3069659
Lightroom seems to run slower the more files you have loaded in its library, will this be improved in future versions?

May do, just depends what sort of feedback they get.

As I understand it, Adobe uses Microsofts SQL for the Lightroom database.

Any database will slow down the more data thats added to it. However, the more efficient the indexes are, the quicker it will run irrespective (almost) of how much data it holds.

So, bottom line I guess, is the more filters you apply, the slower you can expect the results.

TJ

This is pure assumption. Not very well researched, but any answers or advise appreicated:

Wouldn't "Render1:1 previews" option on all images slow the DB down also? I think LR has a 'preset' to clear any 1:1 previews that are older or not viewed for 30 days. So, I am assuming that if one newly imports several GBs of files that 1:1 previews are built to the freshly imported images. Is that correct? Someone correct me if wrong. Still trying to get used to this app. and the features.

I still have not imported my full image library (50 > 60 GB) until I have experimented more.

andrewaaa5 wrote in post #3073562
This is pure assumption. Not very well researched, but any answers or advise appreicated:

Wouldn't "Render1:1 previews" option on all images slow the DB down also? I think LR has a 'preset' to clear any 1:1 previews that are older or not viewed for 30 days. So, I am assuming that if one newly imports several GBs of files that 1:1 previews are built to the freshly imported images. Is that correct? Someone correct me if wrong. Still trying to get used to this app. and the features.

I still have not imported my full image library (50 > 60 GB) until I have experimented more.

I don't tick the Render 1:1 previews box because I don't view every pick at 1:1. This saves a lot of time and resources. Then if I view a pic at 1:1 it takes a second or two to load the shot. OK with me. However this shouldn't cause LR to run slow, only the import process. Once the images have been rendered they are stored in the Previews folder for LR.

Mike: Thats exactly what I do. Although I have read that some people import without the box being ticked (I guess to speed up the import) then generate the previews in the background immediately after the import has finished(?)

Can't much see the point in taking up processor power & hard disk space if, like me, the full-sized previews are not always utilised.

On the subject of import speed. I guess this would also be governed by the number of keywords and other metadata applied during the import. I imported one particularly big shoot into Lightroom yesterday and wondered why the disk seemed to be churning only to realise afterwards that I had already added a heap of keywords to every shot in Bridge when I originally imported to disk - so LR was reading and adding all that keyword info to it's database!

TJ