How I got banned today for 7 days at dpreview.

[Erik]

I'm not sure where I should have compared IMatch with LR?
Or do you mean my last post, in response to the "IMatch is too expensive because it does not develop RAW files"?

I use LR myself, but I would not use it as a DAM. And I would not use IMatch as a RAW developer. No comparison. You combine IMatch with a RAW processor, image editor, audio editor, video editor of your choice.

I didn't say you should have. I just was noting you had compared the cost of IMatch to the cost of LR. A response criticized that comparison since both are not the same software.  Of course, many LR fan-people do think of LR as a DAM, and it probably has more users for that purpose than what they are talking about.

I actually hadn't referred to your last post (hadn't seen it yet), but I think the overall gist is that the dpreview forum does not contain your target audience.  I think your target user  skews towards the professional end, which needs more of the features IM has and less of the bling and social networking features some of those posters over there want. 

My own point is that the typical LR user who may also be a pro, could be a perspective IMatch user because they will potentially find the limitations in LR as a DAM, the limitations of not being able to step out of Adobe products easily, or the cost limitations of buying one of the more expensive DAM alternatives out there.  I personally hate LR as a DAM and avoided it for a long time because I liked IM and was uncertain of how I might interact with it while maintaining IM as my DAM.  It hasn't been easy, but you've made it a piece of cake now.  I'm happy that you programmed IMatch such that it can interact with LR quite well.  The hierarchical keywords in IMatch make it easy to get in and out of LR without having to stay around for long.  I can pretty much ignore LR's library features thanks to IM5. 

[Jingo]

I use LR myself, but I would not use it as a DAM. And I would not use IMatch as a RAW developer. No comparison. You combine IMatch with a RAW processor, image editor, audio editor, video editor of your choice.

Without getting too off-topic... I am curious if you can explain how you use LR and IMatch together?  As a LR user myself, I'm kinda tied into the "catalog" so it were of LR and though I find the editor very nice and perfect for my workflow... the DAM aspect of it is lacking... which brought me to IMatch.  However, I guess I'm not keen on exporting all my LR edits to TIFF/JPG's just so they can be seen correctly in IMatch (ARW RAW files for example).  I like using my DAM to find images based on how they REALLY look... not without all my RAW edits.   Do you just export your files and version them with Proxy views and to heck with the disk space and extra work whenever a tweak is needed to the RAW file?  I tried the DNG approach for a few months... but that had its own drawbacks as well..

Thx!

[hro]

I'm not sure where I should have compared IMatch with LR?
Or do you mean my last post, in response to the "IMatch is too expensive because it does not develop RAW files"?

I use LR myself, but I would not use it as a DAM. And I would not use IMatch as a RAW developer. No comparison. You combine IMatch with a RAW processor, image editor, audio editor, video editor of your choice.

I think you just responded to one poster stating that IM cost more than LR, which doesn't really mean anything. Your response was totally reasonable, only for another poster than accusing you for comparing IM with LR. I think this thread on the DPReview board is dominated by just 2 or 3 individuals who have made up their minds. I don't think it is worth anyone's time here. Rather spend the time enjoying IMatch. 

[Mario]

I think you just responded to one poster stating that IM cost more than LR, which doesn't really mean anything. Your response was totally reasonable, only for another poster than accusing you for comparing IM with LR. I think this thread on the DPReview board is dominated by just 2 or 3 individuals who have made up their minds. I don't think it is worth anyone's time here. Rather spend the time enjoying IMatch. 

I agree. I have said what needs to be said. Done.
I must say that I don't like that de Zonkers calls IMatch users who dare to have a opinion different from his fanboys. To me that's a swear word. Maybe not in the Apple community 

And just look at the long post from Hans de Zonkers from today:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53878406

He seems to be very averse to the fact that the original poster wants to edit his review, after learning some more about IMatch.
I mean, what has Hans to do with that? If a reviewer learns more about IMatch, re-adjusts his initial impression to the better (I assume) because he now understands IMatch more and probably likes it more, why would Hans de Zonkers not like this? It should be the decision of the original poster, and not Hans de Zonkers taking an entire screen page (!) trying to talk him out of it.

This is all very strange. I'm not looking at dpreview.com very often, and looking at this thread, I don't miss much.

[Mario]

Without getting too off-topic... I am curious if you can explain how you use LR and IMatch together?  As a LR user myself, I'm kinda tied into the "catalog" so it were of LR and though I find the editor very nice and perfect for my workflow... the DAM aspect of it is lacking... which brought me to IMatch.  However, I guess I'm not keen on exporting all my LR edits to TIFF/JPG's just so they can be seen correctly in IMatch (ARW RAW files for example).  I like using my DAM to find images based on how they REALLY look... not without all my RAW edits.   Do you just export your files and version them with Proxy views and to heck with the disk space and extra work whenever a tweak is needed to the RAW file?  I tried the DNG approach for a few months... but that had its own drawbacks as well..
Thx!

That's the risk with using LR (or most other RAW processor). All the changes you make a virtual until you persist them by exporting your files. Every edit you make in LR is written as a instruction for the proprietary LR render engine into the LR database - and eventually into the XMP record for the image. But these instructions can only be interpreted by the LR version you have used to create them, or newer versions. Non-Adobe applications cannot see these changes, or apply them to image files.

When you use a DNG workflow, LR can update the embedded preview in DNG to look like the final image, after applying the virtual edits. This is actually one of the key benefits of DNG, but unfortunately, the format never really made it.

IMatch allows you to use visual proxies for your files, but this requires you to export JPEG files from LR so IMatch can use them to make your RAW files look like you see them in LR.

There is no other way. By using LR or another RAW processor you kinda lock yourself into the product.

[Ferdinand]

By using LR or another RAW processor you kinda lock yourself into the product.

This is how it has always been with RAW, and probably always will be.  What's the alternative?  If you shoot only JPG then you've lost a lot of information already.  Some cameras let you shoot TIFF, but not many and it consumes a lot of space.  You could shoot RAW and convert to 16 bit TIFF and do all your edits in a layered TIFF.  I used to use this workflow, but I found it too inefficient and it consumed way too much disk space.

I know that you're negative about RAW lock-in, but in my view it is the least worst solution if you want to edit your images.

[Mario]

As I said, there is not other way if you want to work with non-destructive edits. It's system immanent. It's not something you can be against, it's just how RAW processors work. The lock-in is just a side-effect in favor of the vendor.

By using DNG as your work format you overcome the limitation that other software cannot show your files in the same way you see them in your RAW processor. If your RAW processor is able to update the embedded preview in the DNG file. But this still covers only one "final/external" version, not the virtual copies with different settings you can create in LR or other RAW processors.

I just reiterate that because I get quite a number of emails from LR users complaining that their RAW files do not look in IMatch as they look in LR. They are just not aware of the way a RAW processor works, or how RAW formats work. Having it spelled out here in the community a number of times is just in favor of the search engine.

[Ferdinand]

I just reiterate that because I get quite a number of emails from LR users complaining that their RAW files do not look in IMatch as they look in LR. They are just not aware of the way a RAW processor works, or how RAW formats work. Having it spelled out here in the community a number of times is just in favor of the search engine.

Perhaps another FAQ?

[sinus]

IMatch allows you to use visual proxies for your files, but this requires you to export JPEG files from LR so IMatch can use them to make your RAW files look like you see them in LR.

Is this not the "normal" case?
That IF I does edit my RAWs, that I then export these edited RAWs as jpg?

So we could use visual proxies.
MAYBE we could also export a very small jpg from the RAW, with only some KB, but having then a edited jpg, means finally a proxy.

Since LR is one of the biggest player in RAW-editing, I thought once, IM5 could use the most important things of editing, like exposure, colour, gamma and so on, like IM5 does it now with the (also very important) cutting (Ausschnitt).
This means not the maybe heavy stuff like partial editing, but only the most important stuff.
But, ok,  , I guess, this is not a clever idea.
Over all, I think, the visual proxy - system could be a clever thing.

[Mario]

Perhaps another FAQ?

Are you planning to write one or are you suggestion I shall write one?

[Mario]

Since LR is one of the biggest player in RAW-editing, I thought once, IM5 could use the most important things of editing, like exposure, colour, gamma and so on, like IM5 does it now with the (also very important) cutting (Ausschnitt).

Please keep in mind that these Adobe parameters in XMP are not documented and also change often. And they are instructions for the algorithms Adobe has developed, and thus will work very differently when I try to use them for a exposure correction algorithm I have developed or which is implemented in a third party imaging library.

It's like when Adobe stopped documenting the PSD format with version 6. Several companies tried to keep up with all the new layer types and parameter sets Adobe added after closing the PSD format. It was futile. Thanks to public pressure Adobe had to add the composite image (maximize compatibility) to PSD files so other applications could still at least show previews for PSD files.

[sinus]

Since LR is one of the biggest player in RAW-editing, I thought once, IM5 could use the most important things of editing, like exposure, colour, gamma and so on, like IM5 does it now with the (also very important) cutting (Ausschnitt).

Please keep in mind that these Adobe parameters in XMP are not documented and also change often. And they are instructions for the algorithms Adobe has developed, and thus will work very differently when I try to use them for a exposure correction algorithm I have developed or which is implemented in a third party imaging library.

It's like when Adobe stopped documenting the PSD format with version 6. Several companies tried to keep up with all the new layer types and parameter sets Adobe added after closing the PSD format. It was futile. Thanks to public pressure Adobe had to add the composite image (maximize compatibility) to PSD files so other applications could still at least show previews for PSD files.

Yes, Mario, I understand.
I guess, going the visual proxy - line could be a quite good alternative.

[Erik]

I think it might be worth putting some info together about use of different RAW processors and photo editors in conjunction with LR in the Workflow section. 

Ferdinand makes a lot of points some of us but not necessarily everyone knows.  From what I can see all the RAW processors are going this way of having a library that holds all your edits internally and attempt to lock users in to their software.  It does seem to make it a challenge for anyone to use a workflow where you are essentially using multiple libraries: one for your DAM and one in your RAW processor.  It's not easy to figure out, and once you do, it isn't something a user should want to change. 

Databases shouldn't evolve that much, it's a lot of work if they do.  I'm glad that for the HUGE progress Mario put into IM5 that the overall concept hasn't really changed.  The large companies tend to herd their users rather than satisfy them.  From what I've seen IDImager (or Photo Supreme) has shifted to that path as well.  IM hasn't.

[Ferdinand]

Perhaps another FAQ?

Are you planning to write one or are you suggestion I shall write one?

There are a couple I would like to write, but it's hard to type on a smartphone when you're driving. If it can wait for a few weeks, then ok.

[Mario]

Don't type and drive 

[sinus]

Don't type and drive 

+ 1'000'000 

[andrewh]

The idea of lock in to a particular raw conversion software is not so awful. Raw conversion technology has come on leaps and bounds in the last ten years or so. I find that very often I choose to "try again" when a new version of software is released rather than trying to improve what I have already achieved. Indeed I have even jumped ship (from Bibble/ASP to Photo Ninja) for portfolio quality conversions. I am sure I will do it again.

IMatch should be able to maintain the appropriate buddy files (Usually just XMP but Bibble had its own xmp's as well as standard ones) so that the information, even if not usable in IMatch, is attached like a limpet to the raw file. This is done superbly and I do not believe we should ask for more. The idea of a Jpeg preview file is nice but not of huge importance - I am not sure I would bother.

Andrew from Belgium

[Jingo]

The idea of a Jpeg preview file is nice but not of huge importance - I am not sure I would bother.

Andrew from Belgium

I think it really depends on your workflow and how your images are used within the catalog.  For me, 90% of my images are personal and I use my DAM as the main way to access these files.  It is important that my DAM show and reflect the images as I will use them and that would include an updated RAW preview.  With technology allowing use to take a pretty bad photo out of camera and turning it into a very nice rendition - my DAM needs to reflect these chances so I can visually see these changes.  In this way, the proxy technology along with versioning is a pretty important feature for my workflow.

I think I'm going to need to look at DNG again as this seems to be the best method to ensure all edits are maintained within a single file - the ability to update the preview from within LR is pretty important and would reduce the need for extra files and the steps to export each time an edit to the RAW is made.

[Mario]

I have today written a FAQ for this: https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=2623.0

[Ferdinand]

Thank you