[stewx]

I picked up a new DSLR and found out my copy of Lightroom 3 didn't support the new RAW format. Not willing to pay $125USD/year for the "latest and greatest" version of Lightroom, I found out I could use Adobe's free DNG conversion tool to just convert the fancy new format to DNG and continue using my bought-and-paid-for copy of Lightroom.

Also, major plus: it supports lossy conversion, which churns out files ⅓ the size of the originals, with no perceptible loss in quality. I ended up converting my entire photo catalog, saving hundreds of GBs of disk space. The tool has a CLI as well.

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/adobe-dng-converter...

[sillysaurusx]

From https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw

> DNG strips out most of the unrecognized meta data (such as Active D-Lighting, Picture Controls, Focus Point, etc) from RAW files, making it impossible to retrieve this data from DNG in the future.

The last time I used a DSLR was when I was doing color research in 2012. At the time, raw format was the only thing that preserved all necessary information to make scientific observations.

Most people don't need to care about such things. I just wanted to mention you're irretrievably throwing away metadata when you DNG-dong your pictures.

It's probably a worthwhile trade in most cases though.

[matja]

> At the time, raw format was the only thing that preserved all necessary information to make scientific observations.

Which "RAW" format? I think that is the problem - there are many and few are completely documented, which is where DNG comes in (https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop...).

Great point about throwing away metadata, and probably worthwhile to safeguard that one's flavor of RAW files (CR2/NEF/etc) can be reliably read in the future when the software necessary to read them inevitably disappears from the cloud.

[TriStateFarmer]

This isn't correct. You can embed the original RAW file within the converted one.

[0xCMP]

To be fair: this will use more disk space, but if you want to be able to keep the RAW and use DNG this is the way to go. I wasn't sure if I needed it so when I imported in Lightroom I quickly switched to embedding the original RAW image in the DNG just in case.

[acomjean]

Adobe never back ports the raw converters to older versions of Lightroom. If you shoot raw and get a new camera you have to upgrade the software unless you do your additional convert to dng step. Now Adobe wants a subscription it puts us that like Lightroom but don’t use it super frequently in a bind.

The dng converter is a useful tool, though if using Lightroom it’s an extra step. Usually camera makers supply some software that can do the same.

Generally the raws have a lot more information than the lossy photos, so if you need to do some editing (up shadows or darken highlights.. it’s worth keeping the raw around.) but generally jpgs are quite good. (In photoshop I’ve converted a raw and loaded both images and did an diff.. you can see where the changes from compression happen but it’s quite minor)

[ghaff]

I use Lightroom enough that I don't mind the subscription but that's the problem with subscriptions in general. Assuming they're priced reasonably fairly (which IMO Adobe's photo subscription is), they're fine for programs you use routinely. They're not so good for something you just need now and then and only need to upgrade for specific reasons.

[matwood]

Agree. The 'Photographer Bundle' also comes with PS and includes all the mobile apps. It's actually a good deal if you use any of them regularly. I even pay for the 1tb in space so it also acts as another place my photos are copied (in addition to iCloud, TM, and backblaze).

The other thing is I just compared (again) raw conversion from my z5 in LR, Raw Power, Affinity, and some others and LR still does the best job. DAM is also an issue outside LR.

I completely understand I'm an outlier though in that I still use large cameras - the z5 is nearly brand new.

[roywiggins]

That's more or less true, but I've certainly saved money over the years by sticking with an older digital camera and my old copy of Lightroom 5.

[vaughan]

I use Lightroom Classic (LRC), but recently tried Lightroom CC and its pretty good. I can sync an album from LRC to LRCC, and then can share the album instantly online - so friends/family can see the RAW quality photos. When I make some edits or want to adjust the album - it all syncs automatically.

For me this is the perfect combo/workflow and I'm happy to pay the subscription. LRCC has some bugs and the gallery view could be better though.

The best thing is that I manage the photo files and folder structure locally with LRC, and can back them up easily, and maintain a good archive without having to sync everything.

I found Apple Photos way of taking full control over your photos super painful. The app is terrible and some tasks are so inefficient. Changing your primary photo library to another disk for example will take days - unless you have an SSD. This is absurd. The library is one folder called `Photos.photolibrary`, but the app seems to need to read every single file. And so many other issues too.

[joshmlewis]

The problem with CC is if you're storing a lot of RAW photos, you'll run out of cloud storage within a year. I started off going this route and now I feel stuck.

[vaughan]

So I am only using CC for sharing albums which is the sweet spot.

I just sync one album of photos I want to share to CC. LRC stores every photo I have ever took on a 10TB WD MyBook.

I'm not sure how well CC syncs changes back to LRC though which could be a problem.

[ghaff]

Yeah. I have 100K photos which I've done some pruning of but I really don't want to lock myself into having to pay Adobe for sync space. I believe Lightroom Classic also still has some organizational features that haven't been brought forward yet. For the most part, I'm content with working on my photos on my desktop system. I don't feel a lot of need to have everything synced everywhere.

[vaughan]

I only use CC for albums I want to share. LRC will always be my source of truth. The cool part of the workflow, is you can just tag photos you want to share in LRC, and then they sync and they're in the cloud for people to view at max resolution.

Although the gallery feature of CC is a bit buggy. A better flow might be to sync an album to Dropbox - but syncing plugins are always unreliable I find.

[ghaff]

I use Flickr for sharing and just publish them there directly from Lightroom.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Only a year! Try a day or two. Their base subscription gives 20GiB AFAICT. Yesterday I went birding, and got 13.8GiB of RAW files, AFTER deleting out-of-focus or mis-exposed shots. I started with ~500 photos, after that pruning I've got 240. Each one is ~60MiB, since I've got a 60.2MP camera (Sony α7Riv). File size is definitely a disadvantage of such high-resolution cameras.

[tylermenezes]

When Lightroom CC first came out it had _very_ few features compared to Lightroom Classic. I don't need the presentation tools, but have the develop and organization features caught up at all?

[vaughan]

I don't think so, still feels primitive.

[mnw21cam]

dcraw is a free tool that supports pretty-much every camera that has ever existed. You could try that too.