Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Opening NEF Files Edited in ACR

Michael Rogers
Up until recently my Nikon .nef files were edited in Photoshop CS6 using ACR. All of these files have their associated .xmp files along side in the same folder. When I open any of these nef's in CO I don't see the edits that were created previously in CS6 using ACR. What I see is the original .nef as seen sooc.

1. Is this normal?

Mike
0

Comments

15 comments

Date Votes
  • SFA
    Yes.

    Likewise using ACR to open files edited in Capture One would not work directly.

    You need an intermediate output file - commonly a TIFF file is used.


    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    Thanks, Grant. It's hard to say how long CS6 will work under future updates of Windows 10. Now might be a good time to create those .tiff files.

    Mike
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    Thanks, Grant. It's hard to say how long CS6 will work under future updates of Windows 10. Now might be a good time to create those .tiff files.

    Mike


    Maybe. For your absolute "must keeps to be just as they are".

    On the other hand it's always fun to revisit old images with new approaches or new software ...

    Either way - its only a matter of storage capacity and a little time, though TIFFs do tend to be large files.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    Good points, Grant,

    Many of my "must keeps" are in their final stage like those from my model ship build logs. These will not be revisited. Others that are of a more personal nature, perhaps should be saved as they are.

    I hadn't thought about revisiting old images in a new editor with a new approach. Could be fun.

    Mike
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    Good points, Grant,

    Many of my "must keeps" are in their final stage like those from my model ship build logs. These will not be revisited. Others that are of a more personal nature, perhaps should be saved as they are.

    I hadn't thought about revisiting old images in a new editor with a new approach. Could be fun.

    Mike


    Maybe PSD files could have a life with other products - like Affinity Photo for example. Or flattened (as would be a TIFF file) even in Capture One.

    For possible sharing, of course, jpgs can do a decent job at reasonable size for a final image.

    However if you might wish at some point to return to an image and focus on specific details anew then access to the original file in RAW form (plus edits) may be most desirable.


    Grant
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    However if you might wish at some point to return to an image and focus on specific details anew then access to the original file in RAW form (plus edits) may be most desirable.Grant

    Yes, that would be something to consider.

    Any idea why uncompressed 8 bit tiff's created in Photoshop are 1/3rd the size as those created in CO for the same file?

    Mike
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    However if you might wish at some point to return to an image and focus on specific details anew then access to the original file in RAW form (plus edits) may be most desirable.Grant

    Yes, that would be something to consider.

    Any idea why uncompressed 8 bit tiff's created in Photoshop are 1/3rd the size as those created in CO for the same file?

    Mike


    Sorry Mike, no idea. I don't have Photoshop so have no way to compare what the processes are doing but compression and some other settings may be factors.

    I rarely use tiffs but I do have a fair number from some film scanning a few years ago and they were always relatively large and used a lot of memory when opened.

    A quick google found this.

    https://havecamerawilltravel.com/photog ... mpression/

    No idea how correct it is but it reads much like I have read before with this subject.

    There may be some other factors overlooked in this article.

    For example I believe is is possible to embed a "thumbnail" in a tiff file rather like a camera generated jpg file is embedded in a RAW file.

    HTH.

    Grant
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    Thanks for the article link. I wasn't overly concerned about the file size differences, Just curious more than anything. Perhaps another forum member will know the answer.

    Mike
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    However if you might wish at some point to return to an image and focus on specific details anew then access to the original file in RAW form (plus edits) may be most desirable.Grant

    Yes, that would be something to consider.

    Any idea why uncompressed 8 bit tiff's created in Photoshop are 1/3rd the size as those created in CO for the same file?

    Mike


    My guess would be some kind of compression enabled in PS. Uncompressed there will be no notable difference.
    0
  • Joe Pulcinella
    I can't believe this is 2019, Capture One is in version 12, and we're discussing making everything into TIF files for the sake of interoperability with Adobe products. This is insane. The entire concept behind RAW files with XMP sidecars is to facilitate moving between platforms. Yet Capture One pretends that Adobe, the 800lb gorilla, doesn't exist. C'mon, C1, you've got a great product. Please take it just one teensy step forward and help us all streamline our workflows by handling XMP files the way they are meant to be handled.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="Joe Pulcinella" wrote:
    I can't believe this is 2019, Capture One is in version 12, and we're discussing making everything into TIF files for the sake of interoperability with Adobe products. This is insane. The entire concept behind RAW files with XMP sidecars is to facilitate moving between platforms. Yet Capture One pretends that Adobe, the 800lb gorilla, doesn't exist. C'mon, C1, you've got a great product. Please take it just one teensy step forward and help us all streamline our workflows by handling XMP files the way they are meant to be handled.


    Do you mean the "Adobe" way?
    0
  • OddS.
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    ...Do you mean the "Adobe" way?


    Haha.

    Carl Seibert provides good thinking and facts related to image metadata. Here is a quote from his post on "XMP, IPTC/IIM or Exif...":
    Shockingly, in Photoshop, Adobe’s own metadata format is preferred last. Where there’s a choice, it will only look for XMP if neither IIM nor Exif is available. Go figure.
    (here: https://www.carlseibert.com/xmp-iptciim ... preferred/ )
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="Joe Pulcinella" wrote:
    I can't believe this is 2019, Capture One is in version 12, and we're discussing making everything into TIF files for the sake of interoperability with Adobe products. This is insane. The entire concept behind RAW files with XMP sidecars is to facilitate moving between platforms. Yet Capture One pretends that Adobe, the 800lb gorilla, doesn't exist. C'mon, C1, you've got a great product. Please take it just one teensy step forward and help us all streamline our workflows by handling XMP files the way they are meant to be handled.


    Maybe I don't understand what you mean. How could different programs, with different profiles, different algorithms and different editing capabilities interoperate through xmp files? Even if one of them could read on the xmp file that you have raised the exposition and lowered the saturation, you couldn't expect a consistent result because the starting point would be different.
    0
  • IanS
    [quote="Joe Pulcinella" wrote:
    I can't believe this is 2019, Capture One is in version 12, and we're discussing making everything into TIF files for the sake of interoperability with Adobe products. This is insane. The entire concept behind RAW files with XMP sidecars is to facilitate moving between platforms. Yet Capture One pretends that Adobe, the 800lb gorilla, doesn't exist. C'mon, C1, you've got a great product. Please take it just one teensy step forward and help us all streamline our workflows by handling XMP files the way they are meant to be handled.


    Edits in raw converters are propriety and cannot be duplicate by another raw converter so I don't quite see what point you are making? XMP can carry keyword, star ratings etc. to other programs and C1Pro does this.

    Ian
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Joe Pulcinella" wrote:
    I can't believe this is 2019, Capture One is in version 12, and we're discussing making everything into TIF files for the sake of interoperability with Adobe products. This is insane

    You seem to have no understanding of the subject matter. How can edits made in one converter making meaningful sense to another converter, simply because both can read (say) XMP?

    Just to use one easy example: "10" on the Saturation slider in Lr is entirely different in terms of its effect, to "10" in Capture One, not least because Capture One's Saturation is actually more akin to a Smart Vibrance control.

    See the problem? Just because two languages use the same alphabet, it doesn't mean that words in one language are capable of being understood by someone only familiar in the other language - that's very closely analogous to the issue which you seem to think is so easy to address.
    0

Post is closed for comments.