Lightroom Classic: Multiple dng files from conversion

Hi Victoria,

I was simply following my regular workflow when dealing with files from this old camera.  I download the files into a directory created by a photography management program named Light Blue.  The folder structure is created and named automatically; in this case the folder structure is:

Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination
Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination\processed
Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination\unprocessed

The images are copied with file verification using Path Finder 8 into the 'unprocessed' subfolder.  They are then renamed as 'Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination - 'sub location' - 'original file number'.

In this case, the files were named:

Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination - Ek' Balam - IMG_2019021.tif
Mexico's Mayan & Aztec Illumination - Ek' Balam - IMG_2019021.jpg

After copying and renaming, the files are imported into LR.

After import, depending upon the number of files and their size in the import, I might optimize the catalog.  I might keyword fist, and then optimize.  There's no hard and fast rule; I typically see how LR is responding.  If it is flying along, then I continue the workflow without optimization.  If it is dogging it, I will optimize.  If the optimization takes a long time, I will restart LR and then continue.

In this case, LR was humming along nicely, so I keyworded the images and then selected the tiffs for conversion to dng.

One (1) dng was produced for each tiff.  I optimized and restarted and viola!  Three (3) dngs in the collection 'Previous Import,' faithfully aligned with the tiff and the jpeg, all with the very same file number.  Except, the duplicates actually do NOT exist in any folder on any drive.  I verified this with Path Finder 8.

I've been using LR since version 3 and have never seen this behavior previously.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I have encountered more oddball behavior and bugs in LR 7.5 than in any previous version, and my observations have been borne out by reading the blogs since the release of LR 7.

That's why I delayed for months before upgrading, and I did that all because of a piece of hardware — Loupedeck+.

Ah well.  What do you think, Victoria?  Should I remove the dngs from the catalog and start again?  Should I move the real dngs where LR can't find them and then see of LR cannot find them and then move them back?

I can see several permutations one could apply here.

Update: After catalog optimization, the duplicate DNGs are still present.  However, when one right-clicks on the image in Library and selects 'Show in Finder', each DNG points right back to the single DNG file.

In essence, these duplicate DNGs exist only in Lightrooms imagination.

The question remains: "How to remove the extras?  Which ones should be selected, or does it make no difference?

All five (5) files in LR have exactly the same file name.  However, the two (2) extra dngs do not actually exist in any folder on any of my drives.  This is confirmed.

The tiff file is a raw file from an old camera which produces a tiff and a jpeg.  My Photoshop guru prefers working with dngs, hence the GOOD reason for creating one (1) from the tiff.    Only the tiff was selected when the dng creation was executed, and the fact that the others do not really exist except in LR is proof.

Your Photoshop guru is confused (or you are if indeed the original is a TIFF) and you really need to check up on what is rather silly “advice” IF so.
Verify THEN trust.
Ask him exactly what good it does you and report back. Raw, TIFF and DNG are all based on the same Adobe owned and controlled format.
A raw converted to DNG is not the same as a TIFF converted to DNG! One is rendered and the other is not.

My Photoshop guru is a she and Simone makes a very nice six-figure income in the UK providing Photoshop services to corporate clients.  They, and I, trust her implicitly, and they put their trust in her in the form of British Pounds.

I'm not completely aware of the history of the raw file, but back in the day there were several cameras which produced as their 'raw' file a tiff file.  However, I do know that raw files which are not tiffs are NOT an "Adobe owned and controlled format"—that is an idiotic premise.  The raw file format (e.g., .arw . CR2, etc.) is proprietary to the camera manufacturer.   I think Sony or Canon or Nikon would be surprised to know that they do not own their patented intellectual property.

You should also look up the definition of "rendered" as what you imply is grossly incorrect.

As to your claim about the basement of DNG and TIFF formats, once again you are incorrect.  The DNG format is based upon the international standard ISO 12234-2, titled "Electronic still-picture imaging – Removable memory – Part 2: TIFF/EP image data format".  This is different from the Tagged Image File Format, which is a standard administered by Adobe currently called "TIFF, Revision 6.0 Final – June 3, 1992."

In a nutshell, the major difference between DNG and the ISO 12234-2 standard is the increased capacity for the inclusion and handling of metadata.  That's why Simone—and many other Photoshop professionals working with images from professional photographers—prefers using the DNG format rather than a simple TIFF.

A TIFF is a rendered image. A raw isn’t. Both are based on TIFF/EP. If your camera produces an actual TIFF (rendered), there is absolutely NO reason to convert it do DNG. If it is actually a proprietary raw, there are indeed many reasons to convert to DNG:
http://digitaldog.net/files/ThePowero...

You stated you are converting rendered TIFFS to DNG but hopefully you are confused between proprietary raws and rendered TIFFs.

BTW, this is raw and I'd hope you would agree, it's nothing like a rendered TIFF:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg

Where exactly did I state I was converting 'rendered' tiffs?  I am converting a raw file which happens to be in the tiff format into a dng.   There are high-end and speciality cameras which write tiff files as their raw format.

And I think you are still a bit confused about the tiff format.  There are two (2) diffierent ISO standards for this format; dated decades apart.  You cannot talk about a tiff file without making the distinction between which standard it is based upon.

Where exactly did I state I was converting 'rendered' tiffs

Where? In your VERY first post. Copy and paste:
 I converted the tiffs into Adobe dngs files 

A TIFF is rendered. I know of no digital camera that produces an actual TIFF that is raw data. I know of lots that produce proprietary raw data, not rendered that is based on a TIFF.
You should IMHO, follow your 'guru's' advise and convert proprietary raws to DNG. And I suspect you're not clear on the differences between TIFF and a proprietary raw data file or I and at least one other here would not have asked you specifically WHY you're converting TIFF to DNG which is something that can be done. You can convert a JPEG to DNG too. Pointless. And explained why. JPEGs, like TIFFs are rendered images, NOT raw data. Do you see the difference now? And why two of us asked why you're converting TIFF to DNG? 

What you really wanted to say was  I converted the raws into Adobe DNGs files. But you didn't so we had to read your writings as provided. 

Andrew, despite you having a blog and publishing articles, you seem to not really understand what 'render', 'rendered', or 'rendering' is.

In essence, rendering is the application of the rendering equation—which is an integral equation in which the equilibrium radiance leaving a point is given as the sum of emitted plus reflected radiance under a geometric optics approximation—by a computer program.

ALL photorealistic or non-photorealistic images from a 2D or 3D model (or models in what collectively could be called a scene file)  are rendered by means of computer programs.

The results of displaying such a model can be called a render.  A scene file contains objects in a strictly defined language or data structure; it would contain geometry, viewpoint, texture, lighting, and shading information as a description of the virtual scene.  The data contained in the scene file is then passed to a rendering program to be processed and output to a digital image or raster graphics image file.

Your attempt to make a distinction by case of rendering is like saying there is a difference between puppies which are born and puppies which are whelped.

A difference which makes no difference is not a difference.

See the differences and the specific mention of TIFF below? I'm not making this stuff up sir:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, or motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner.[1][2] Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal color space where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation. This often encodes the image in a device-dependent color space. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of raw formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners).[3]

Maybe you'll inform us of the actual camera you're using to produce the raw?

Andrew, despite you having a blog and publishing articles, you seem to not really understand what 'render', 'rendered', or 'rendering' is.

I'm not sure you really understand the difference between a rendered TIFF and a raw despite my efforts to show you (again, I'm not making this stuff up):

Raw vs. rendered 
https://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/raw-vs-rendered

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-file-conversion-steps/
HOW DOES A RAW IMAGE GET RENDERED?

https://www.lynda.com/Maya-tutorials/Rendering-raw-files/370603/384936-4.html
Rendering raw files

Need more outside references? 

The article fails to point out that despite calling a tiff rendered and a raw file not rendered, the underlying mathematics of creating the file is based upon the very same equation introduced into computer graphics by David Immel and James Kajiya in 1986.  The various realistic rendering techniques in computer graphics attempt to solve this equation.

In short, all image files are rendered using this equation or a variant.  Therefore, they are all renedered from the data in the file.  What they look like to the naked eye is another matter, and I think that is where you are attemtping to draw the distinction.  However, from an engineering standpoint, it makes no difference.

I am not saying you are completely wrong; however you are playing a bit fast and loose with the underlying engineering whilst skipping the mathematics.  I see it as similiar to a book of popular science versus an article in a peer-reviewed science journal.  Both are essentially correct, but one is far more correct than the other.

All the articles speak of taking raw data, something you specifically did not mention, and rendering a TIFF. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

EVERYTHING your computer does is math! It's all 1's and zero's. Your issue is language in defining what you're doing with what data. Which is why two of us asked you why you're converting TIFFS to DNG which we wouldn’t' have asked has you phrased your language ideally as I pointed out above ( to repeat: What you really wanted to say was  "I converted the raws into Adobe DNGs files". But you didn't so we had to read your writings as provided).

As the Chinese proverb says: The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name.

Maybe you'll inform us of the actual camera you're using to produce the raw.

Or maybe you can't?

BTW, this is raw and I'd hope you would agree, it's nothing like a rendered TIFF:

Or maybe you can't? 

I am using a Hassalblad with a custom back made by Olympus Medical.  Actually, there are (or were) several camera manufacturers who produced digital cameras with their raw files having the .tif extension.  In the early days, Olympus was one of these.  Understood, as they are usually credited with developing the first mass market digital camara (though as an engineer and not a historian, I cannot state this for a certainty).

I am sure you are aware that many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CRW CR2 CR3 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on the TIFF file format.  These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tagged data.

So, I did not say I was converting 'rendered' tiffs.  I said I was converting raw files into Adobe dngs.  I did not use the term 'rendered' because it was superfluous if one understands the process of rendering.   I did not use the term 'raw' because that would also have been superfluous as that camera back produces tiff as its raw file.  You jumped all over this because you do not understand the definition or mathematical basis for render.

Please show me where Hasselblad states their raw file (.3FR) is a TIFF or why it doesn't have a .TIF extension if as you incorrectly assume, it's a TIFF? 

Please tell me that when you double click on a rendered TIFF vs. the 3FR, if Photoshop proper opens with a rendered image OR ACR opens with that 3FR? 

Please tell me why raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CRW CR2 CR3 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), have unique extensions and again NEVER open rendered in Photoshop or similar but MUST be opened in a raw converter BECAUSE they are NOT TIFFs! 

You seem to believe that bread crumbs and a BLT sandwich are the same because both use bread. If I came onto a forum on cooking and asking about making a BLT with bread crumbs instead of bread, I suspect some who understand the differences would ask for clarity, and warn that using bread crumbs to build a sandwich isn't a good idea. Just like converting a TIFF to DNG is pointless. Two of us pointed this out to you due to your somewhat sloppy description of your workflow. No sir, you are not converting TIFFs to DNG. You are converting raw files, specifically a proprietary Hasselblad file to DNG. It may be based on TIFF but it ain't a TIFF and if you try treating it the same, the differences pointed out to should be obvious. Assuming you're here to learn or assistance which is questionable after so many posts trying to get you to clearly define what you're actually doing before we even get into the Lightroom 'issue' if it even exists. 

Now you came here for help despite your super guru who charges so much money which is a bit odd. You've asked a question in a way that is incorrect and confusing. OK, we understand now you're trying to convert a proprietary raw to DNG. It isn't a TIFF. No more than a BLT sandwich is the same as breadcrumbs. 

You wrote:  
I am sure you are aware that many raw file formats, are based on the TIFF file format.  
Yes as I told you this before you made that statement. Read then reply. 
DNG is based on TIFF too. So you converted from TIFF to TIFF using your not so well defined language of what's based on what? No, you converted from raw to DNG. Why confuse the issue and just form a question in a way we can attempt to aid you (for free unlike your guru). 

Had you as much experience with Hasselblad (Imacon) cameras as I sir, you'd recall the time their native raw format, written to disk WAS A DNG! Which isn't a TIFF. Nor is it today. 

Sweet Jesus take the wheel!  Do you deliberately misunderstand everything or are you simply simple?  The Hasselblad has a custom back on it made by Olympus Medical.  The 'blad body is actually a 500C film camera with the film back removed.

The raw files listed above are all based upon the tif standard.  These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tagged data.  However, that does not mean they are tifs, but they are rendered using Immel and Kajiya's equation in the IC.  Clearly, you do not have an engineering degree—at least not from an accredited university.

Show me with equations and data structures how a tifand a raw file, both derived from an ISO standard.  Do not send me your opinions or layman articles.  Speak engineering or don't speak at all.

Sweet Jesus take the wheel!  Do you deliberately misunderstand everything or are you simply simple?  The Hasselblad has a custom back on it made by Olympus Medical.  The 'blad body is actually a 500C film camera with the film back removed.

Then you failed to answer the question:  WHAT raw format does the Olympus Medical back output? 

No, not all raw files are based on TIFF. And basing a raw on TIFF doesn’t make it a TIFF or it would behave like a TIFF which it will not assuming you actually try. 

You don't need equations, you need to understand how to define data being used in correct language. You didn't, hence you were asked by two people WTF you mean and why you are converting a TIFF to DNG. 

Now we know you're not doing that. You're just writing in a less then clear fashion even after being told is the correct terminology. Maybe your super guru can explain that to you and maybe you'll accept it. 

Show me with equations and data structures how a tifand a raw file, both derived from an ISO standard.

No equations necessary. Just double click on an actual rendered TIFF and the raw it was rendered from and tell us they behave identically IF you can. 

Convert that rendered TIFF to DNG. Convert the raw to DNG. Tell us you really believe they are identical. Then we can see it's time to ignore you request for any help here....

The raw file format has the extension .tif.  One does not require a post-processor to open it.  You can see it in Mac OS Finder and of course, Lightroom.  However, if one opens the file in a text editor, one will see that the header is somewhat different and there is present some included data information, including handles which a DICOM reader can see.

Do you know what a DICOM image file is, sir?

And please do not insult my Photoshop guru; she knows Photoshop but she is not an engineer and does not pretend to know anything about the internal data structures of image files (as you pretend to do so).

My writing was prefectly clear.  Except to you, because you made an assumption based upon your imperfect knowledge.  (Remember the old adage, when one makes an assumption he makes an ass out of u and me.   In this case, more u than me.)

How about we just agree to ignore each other?  I've been ready to stop for quite some time, but clearly you have no life beyond the keyboard.  The day I need help from someone as pompous as you will be when Hell freezes over.

IF it's got a TIFF extension, I suspect it's indeed a TIFF and not raw and I'd ask you to upload a file to examine but expect it will fall on deaf ears. If it isn't raw, then the two of us were indeed absolutely correct in pointing out, there's zero reason to convert a TIFF to DNG. But heck, it's your workflow and you've got the super guru who apparently wasn't super enough to help you on basic LR workflow. 

What part of 'ignore' do you not understand?  (My apologies if English is not your native language.)  Please refrain from replying to ANY of my posts going forward.  There are enough trolls out there...we don't need another.

What part of 'ignore' do you not understand?  

What part of an open forum community do you not understand? 
What part about converting from raw vs. TIFF to DNG do you not (yet) understand? 

Troll alert!

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Søren Kierkegaard

I am sure you are aware that many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CRW CR2 CR3 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on the TIFF file format.  

CRW were not based on TIFF, they were based on CIFF.
http://xyrion.org/ciff/CIFFspecV1R04.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_Image_File_Format

You should get a life.  I think Trump adequately described you as the 400-pound fat man laying in his bed with his computer.

Your first reference clearly states "The first version of this RAW format was .CRW (see also here) and is used by Canon D30, D60, 10D, 300D, PowerShot Pro1, G1-G6, S30-S70. The EOS 1Ds is writing TIFF files."

I won't even bother to cite your second reference and how it also disproves your claim.  (BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, the paragraph you quoted from me came from Wikipedia.  So if you can cite them as your source, so too can anyone else.)

You are only proving my point that you are a classic internet troll.  LOL

Now, please go to bed—oops, my bad; you're already there!—and let the adults in the room continue the discussion.  (I can't believe that the ASMP, of which I have been a dues paying member for decades, allows you to posit yourself as a techincal expert.  I might have to resign in protest.)

The first reference From Canon does not state that with no reference to TIFF as they are NOT based on it as you posted.
Do resign in protest, please.

“I think Trump adequately described you as the 400-pound fat man laying in his bed with his computer.”

And I’m the Troll.

“Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.”― Abraham Lincoln

1) DNG file compression is better than TIFF ZIP compression (smaller file size)
2) DNG has a full-size Embedded Preview (speeds Import using Embedded & Sidecar Preview Building setting)
I'm not saying these are overwhelming reason to convert TIFFs to DNGs, but to some users it may be a benefit. Downside is DNG files don't support layers (layered TIFFs are flattened).

Ah but with ZIP or LZW compression? 
Why do you need a full sized embedded preview when the entire image is rendered and can be previewed? Or the embedded thumbnail we see in the Finder? 

Took a big layered image, converted to DNG, think the layers are gone. So that's a big problem! 

Took the same file, flatted it, saved as TIFF with LZW and DNG. DNG is smaller indeed. Bad news is, no preview or thumbnail showing up on DNG in Mac Finder (latest OS), but a preview from the TIFF. 

TIFF with LZW is 43MB
DNG is 28.5MB

Difference opening each and what one gets (using Photoshop). 

TIFF with LZW opens in 1 second Photoshop proper, ready to work on.
DNG opens ACR in about the same time (tad slower) but now I've got to process it through ACR.
No free lunch here. And no reason to convert TIFFs to DNG IMHO, at least a few reasons not to convert unless disk space is hugely important to you. And I really don't think anyone with layered TIFFs will wish to convert to DNG! Good-by layers it seems.

Andrew, I already mentioned DNGs do no not support layers and neither do raw files. This discussion concerns working with files inside LR so I would think results with PS, ACR, Finder are secondary.

"Why do you need a full sized embedded preview when the entire image is rendered and can be previewed?"

DNG files can be updated when develop edits have been applied using 'Update DNG Preview & Metadata.' This updates the embedded develop settings AND the embedded preview with those settings rendered. Using TIFF file format you can also embed the develop metadata, but the image data and resulting previews remain unchanged (not rendered). When importing DNG files the Library previews render very quickly since LR is simply reading the full-size embedded preview. When importing TIFF files with embedded settings LR must render Standard and 1:1 previews using the embedded develop settings, which takes considerably longer.

This may be a useful when multiple people are involved in the editing and reviewing processes. This benefit applies whether the original files are RGB rendered TIFFs or actual raw files. Regardless, converting TIFFs to DNG should not cause any issues such as creating phantom extra copies correct?

Yes Todd, one can update the DNG  preview and metadata but it's kind of pointless with a rendered TIFF, it's all updated every time too.
Multiple edits can be also be embedded by multiple users in the TIFF like DNG. 
 So I see no advantage in TIFF to DNG conversions here. Now the file size IS smaller and I didn't test TIFF with ZIP just due to possible compatibility issues. It may be as small as the DNG. But it's not enough where I can see any advantage and a few disadvantages (like the behavior of Photoshop on the docs) with a DNG from a rendered TIFF. I still see it as utterly pointless. DNG from a proprietary raw, now that's a useful workflow I practice and highly recommend. 

Guys, please keep the thread on topic. It's gone round the houses long enough. This isn't a debate about the DNG format. This is a bug report about ghost images.

Nope.  Please see response above.  I think it is a catalog corruption too, and the catalog is currently being checked for integrity and then optimization.

Just re-sync the folder(s) or create a new catalog and import. Now what do you see? 

Didn't work super guru.

Of course, you didn't answer the question. 
Seems she's not so super after all. 

Troll alert!

"The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about". -Wayne Dyer

dmeephd, I agree it's some kind of catalog corruption

And yet, when I asked him to try importing the DNG into a new catalog,  he reported no fix so I don't see how that's the issue. To copy and paste:

AR: Just re-sync the folder(s) or create a new catalog and import. Now what do you see? 

 dmeephd : Didn't work super guru.

Think he really did try with a new catalog?

Andrew, that's not what you were arguing about... and it's not the only reported case. You're just winding each other up and it's not helping anyone.

No it's not at all what we were arguing about. We were arguing about converting TIFFs to DNG. That's over with, dmeephd can't accept that his question about conversion just caused multiple people here to question what and why he was doing what he said he's doing. 

The question I asked and he answered was elsewhere from those debates. The problem appears to be simply what was asked first:

I converted the tiffs into Adobe dngs files.  After restasrting LR 7.5, I find that I have multiple dngs!?!   At least three (3)!

So the theory was, it's a catalog issue as the OP states there is only ONE DNG yet he see's three. OK, if it is the catalog, then why would creating a new, virgin catalog and importing that ONE DNG produce the same issue? Unless dmeephd didn't do as requested. 
IF the issue is the DNG (I suppose that's possible) he should upload it and allow others to attempt to import it into their catalogs to see what happens. But at this point, IF what dmeephd reported was accurate (?) in terms of a test I suggested with a new catalog, I can't understand how the catalog is the issue. 

I agree, Victoria, however some folks just can't seem to drop it, citing this as an open public forum and implying they can troll another for as long as they like.  I stopped responding last night but the posts just keep on coming, right up to 5:55 PDT this morning.  I will respond no further to this gentleman.

Back to the original issue at hand...

I found that each dng in the Library view pointed to the same dng file in Finder.  Not knowing which one to remove, I simply chose one and viola!, they all were removed (for a given image).  The actual dng file was, of course, untouched.

I repeated the process for all of the images with duplicate dngs.  Then I optimized the catalog and restarted LR.  Next I performed an import and the individual dngs in the folder were imported and added to the catalog, one for each image.  No duplication this time around.

I next imported another set of raw files in tiff format (as described by Olympus Medical themselves) along with their matching jpegs.  I then selected the tiis, used the 'Convert Photo to DNG' with the 'Only conver raw files' unchecked.  The dngs were created with no duplicates.

Subsequent imports of images have been without fault, albeit, slow compared to LR6.  Part of the problem I think lies with the fact that LR is performing preview building in parallel with the import process.  I observe that the center library pane remains blank until around 75% of the import has been accomplished, and then the images appear (whilst preview building—standard or 1:1; makes no difference) continues.

LR6 never attempted these operations in parallel.  Is this a new feature of LR 7, and if so, can it be disabled?

I have seen more problems with the catalog since upgrading and this parallel processing fo such computationally intensive operations might be contributory.  It certainly cannot be my hardware as my MacPro is heavily augmented with after market upgrades making it as powerful a MacPro as one can obtain.

Finally, as to sending you a copy of my catalog, I'm afraid it is far too large for that—just over 26GB (down from 37GB under LR6).  When it became corrupted last October (due to a new version of the mirroring program recursively writing the backups while LR was running) I had trouble sending it to the Adobe database guru you recommended (who was able to fix the db).

Regards,

David Martin, Ph.D.

Thank you David, that's useful information. I suspect it's a relatively rare issue but it is being investigated.

Finally, as to sending you a copy of my catalog, I'm afraid it is far too large for that—just over 26GB (down from 37GB under LR6).

Since you can use some education on this, you can Export as catalog 1 image only. The resulting catalog will be vastly smaller but most of the stuff we would need to evaluated the catalog would exist in this new version with a far, far smaller size. You could examine DropBox or Hightail too, if again, you really do want to share the catalog so Adobe or others can inspect it. 
IF you really needed help in uncovering possible catalog issues, you can upload one. I suspect that will not happen, like the request to upload a 'raw' TIFF your back produces. 

What also will probably fall on deaf ears is a clear answer if you indeed made a new catalog and imported the one DNG after which you did see more than one DNG in that new catalog as asked. There's a massive difference in what may be happening on your end if we know it's a single catalog issue or one that manifests itself with a new catalog. If so, the next test would be to try this on a different computer since by your own admission, you've had catalog problems and corruption. 

I've been using LR since before it went beta; I've never had a corrupted catalog. It's indeed possible! But it's also a factor based on your system/drive etc. Hence, if you really want to get to the bottom of this, knowing if the issue occurs in one new catalog or all would go a long ways to aiding people in figuring out the issue. Assuming that's your goal. 

Andrew, we all know how much experience you have, but with all due respect, YOU'RE NOT HELPING. Please, I'm begging you, let it drop. There's already a catalog attached to the bug, which is already being investigated, and if the engineers need a chunk of this one, they can ask for it. Stop putting David down - it's not fair.

Victoria please explain how this would be a catalog issue if one imports the DNG suspect into a new catalog? I asked the Dr. to try this and he said it didn't make any difference.

Can you explain if this is so, why he'd even need to upload his entire original catalog which is doable and has been explained but maybe not at all necessary? 

Andrew, you're clearly in an argumentative mood this weekend, both on this and other threads. I'm not quite sure why you're having a rough time or why you're so desperate to be proven right, but it's not fair that you keep hammering on other people. Let it go. It doesn't matter.