Editing metadata xmp files update

[Gary Small]

As previously mentioned in the Editing Photos Deletes…

DNG files keyworded in Nitro results in a non-standard named “xmp” file which precedes the actual file. This results in the keywords not being read by other software. Camera RAW files keyworded by Nitro have a standard “xmp” file which follows the actual file as expected by alphabetical list. The DNG “xmp” files are named “file_dng.xmp”, which is why the alphabetically precede the file. The main thing is that these non standard named files do not logically connect to the actual (photo) file…so not read by other software.

So by experimentation…when I remove the “_dng” from the “file_dng.xmp” file, it becomes a standard “file.xmp” file and IS associated with the photo file AND consequently…the keywords ARE read by other software.

So the question is why this anomaly? Why are DNG sidecars named differently than camera raw files? Can this be corrected? I know there was some concern about “conflicts”, but the existing process is unusable for DNG files…although the naming anomaly doesn’t happen with raw files.

I am shooting significantly more with iPhone 17 Pro than traditional cameras and using Nitro to edit DNGs is a broken workflow if I have to keyword elsewhere, – OR – rename all of the sidecars.

I would welcome some relief to this dilemma…thanks. Gary

[Nik Bhatt]

Adobe in their infinite wisdom did not create a standard for XMP files for non-proprietary image files (JPEG, TIFF, DNG). For those files, Adobe assumes that the XMP data will be written inside the original file. Modifying the original file is a non-starter for many photographers, who want their originals to be pristine and there is also always the chance of data loss when writing to a file. Nitro supports the idea of immutable originals.

Why does Nitro not use “original.xmp” in that case? Because of RAW+JPEG. In that case, there are two original files and both would try to modify the same XMP file, causing a collision / conflict. For example, it would be easy to rate the RAW and flag the JPEG (say to mark it for deletion). But in that case, both images would be rated and flagged with the same value as there is only one standard place to store that metadata.

At some point (hopefully not long, but there are always so many requests for features and improvements), I will offer the ability to write into the original file and also to let people use the “original.xmp” for JPEGs. As mentioned, both of these have some degree of danger. And, it is virtually certain that someone will have data loss either due to some corruption, or because they have R+J and don’t understand that “original.xmp” is completely unsupported for that style of shooting.

The approach I have taken is less compatible with other apps, but is by far the most safe, and data safety is my first and foremost priority.

[Gary Small]

Thanks Nik! For sure, the combination of Adobe and Apple’s smug attitudes of “not playing nice with others” is at the heart of this, and waiting for them to “see the light” is a fool’s errand.

I think I understand your position more clearly now and appreciate the conservative approach philosophically. It clearly works if one’s workflow is entirely in Nitro, but that isn’t realistic. I am only a hobbyist and may be somewhat uniformed about the universe of software and users, but my sense is that all other software that I am familiar with DO write metadata into DNGs and other non raw formats. I always assume that is the case with any other software, so it would seem to be a “standard” that users would expect with no fault accruable to Nitro when metadata is embedded in those files. This would eliminate the issue of Raw+Jpeg, which I have no sense of how often that is users by photographers. I seldom use Raw+JPEG, even though my Fujis have some great film simulations. When I DO shoot Raw+Jpeg, I segregate the two formats and edit them separately, which is simple to do, and makes no sense to do otherwise.

As you say, there are always “feature requests”, but this is fundamental to workflow. We all respect your efforts and value the product, so I will keep Nitro on the “shelf” until there is (or I can find) a workflow that is useable for me…..gary

[Nik Bhatt]

I understand that it’s important to your workflow. As far as “feature requests”, there are many R+J customers who have been asking for R+J specific features and those are important to _their_ workflows. At the same time, customers who shoot proprietary RAW are completely unaffected by this. All I can say is that I will add them when I can.

[Author]

Posts