Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: erikhillard on April 19, 2006, 09:37:38 pm
-
Do you DNG ???
I haven't been delivering DNG files to my photographer clients.
Just RAW files, Processed TIFFs and Low Rez JPEGs.
Curious how many people out there are incorporating DNG into their workflows.
At this point I'm not really interested in adding another huge block of time to my workflow.
But it would be a good education to have someone try and convince me.
-
For my own stuff, everything gets turned to DNG and I toss the originals. It doesn't take up much more time really as I incorporate it into the import process.
If a client gives me proprietary raw files to work with, then I leave them as so unless I'm asked to convert them.
If I was in a situation where I was delivering raw files I captured to a client then they'd be getting dngs and they'd like it since I don't work with anything else. But in reality, I don't give raw files I captured to a client since post production is part of the creative process. Besides, allot of people have a hard enough time dealing with color spaces let alone converting raw files.
What kind of workflow are you talking about?
-
For my own stuff, everything gets turned to DNG and I toss the originals. ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did that with some of my Canon CR2 files. Then, I decided that DPP 2.0 does the best RAW conversion. Oops.
Ken
-
I convert everything to DNG, it is nice to have all the meta data inside the file.
You can include your original RAW file in the DNG if you have concerns of possibly switching to a raw converter that does not process DNG.
-
My workflow varies per job. But mainly I work as a digital tech for photographers. Sometimes I am using Capture One with Canon or Phase but I also use the Leaf backs alot with LeafCapture. So I'm not always processing with the same software.
They generally want Hi Rez Tiff files delivered to their advertising/editorial clients and Low Rez JPEGs for editting purposes. I generally give them the RAW files as well for a level of backup. Of course I also always try to get my clients have more than two copies of every job.
I've debated delivering DNGs, Hi Rez TIFFs and Low Rez JPEGs. But I've thought the extra step of DNG would be another thing I do that I am not paid for. I do see a bit of the long term advantage of DNG, but not sure if I should implement it into my company work. I haven't really heard of other digital techs doing DNG.
-
Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
-
You can download the DNG converter from the Adobe website, and convert RAW files in batch very quickly. Being a belt-and-braces kind of person, I keep the RAW file AND a DNG file, stored on separate archived hard disks (that's in addition to the original and it's PSD/TIFF/JPEG derivations on a RAID 5 array!).
The time it takes for the copying is minimal, and if you perform the copy after you've done all your metadata keywording / cataloguing in the RAW files, then that same metadata is reproduced in the DNG. As for the extra storage it consumes - from my 1Ds2 it's taking up about 13.2Gb per 1,000 images, which means I can get about 15,000 DNG files on a 200Gb HDD - slightly fewer RAW files as they're a little bigger.
Disk is so cheap, I feel it's worth the minimal overhead in money and time to dedicate a disk to an archived DNG copy, as who knows what converters will be standard in a couple of years' time? If DNG doesn't become universal, then what have you lost?
Peter
-
Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63135\")
Use the Adobe DNG Converter.
[a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html]Adobe DNG Converter[/url]
The downloads are available in the upper left of the page. Pretty much drag and drop.
-
Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Almost every third-party raw converter out there supports DNG with the exception of C1 (but they support it in spirit! </sarcasm>) and DXO (it exports in DNG but doesn't read DNG raw files).
Pre-2.4 ACR had issues but the most recent version of ACR it top-notch. You might want to give it another whirl. It's always useful to have another tool in the arsenal (esp. with Lightroom coming).
erikhillard,
The term "digital technitian" is a bit non-descriptive but I don't see anything too different on your site from what I myself do (aside from equipment rental). Anyway, as I said before, if your clients give you raw images to work on, then I wouldn't change things to DNG as they may take issue with that. Particularly if they are using non-DNG software.
If you are taking the images, then it's up to you. Sure, you won't get paid for the extra time you spend in converting them but you can market DNGs benefits and add value to your product. However, you'll be giving up C1 software until they awaken and catch up with the rest of the market.
-
Not yet!
I still use canon software for a whole bunch of EXIF data that is propietry to the canon RAW files/software and cannot be seen in ACR, for that reason alone I'm sticking to native formats.
Other than that DNG has not taken off the way it was expected to, it is still a baby on the scene and let's be honest, I'm not going to be in trouble looking at the market 3-5 years hence and then making my decision to change my files to DNG for the simple reason that I will still be able to view my native files in many programs still and only then making a decision based on how DNG really integrated. DNG is only - what - one year old? I don't feel guilty about wariness to change two years and tens of thousands of files over so soon.
-
...I still use canon software for a whole bunch of EXIF data that is propietry to the canon RAW files/software and cannot be seen in ACR, for that reason alone I'm sticking to native formats....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I mentioned above, there's another reason, at least for Canon shooters, not to discard RAW files. I converted some of my CR2 files to DNG, and then learned that DPP 2.0 does better conversion, particularly compared to ACR. It is possible to embed the CR2 files in DNG files, but at the cost of increased file size. I really prefer the interface of ACR, but image quality comes first.
Ken
-
I see the DNG's archival value. I'll consider it.
As far as converters go the only two I like (Nikon Capture and Bibble) don't support DNG.
I wish ACR produced results I liked - it would simplify my workflow. I try it every time they release an update.
-
Note I don't shoot for anyone but myself (my life as a Pro photographer ended last century <g>).
I do use .DNG. The big reasons are:
I don't want to rely on some proprietary format (in my case Canon).
I don't want to mess with sidecar files. The beauty of .DNG is I can embed all kinds of useful EXIF data directly into the file.
I'm hoping to see .DNG evolve further. For example, how cool would it be to embed multiple rendering instructions (tiny files) within a .DNG so my RAW converter could produce a B&W, a sepia, a full color image and apply differing file sizes and color spaces? You could send someone a .DNG file and they could "see" in the same converter all the edits I specify and build their own versions of the edits. Only when I tell the converter "use this instruction set to render the file" would I end up with a full rez (or smaller) rendered image. Makes working with full resolution pixel based rendered files seem positively 20th century.
-
... DPP 2.0 does better conversion, particularly compared to ACR.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken, I'm curious - I find DPP to be an awful interface with non-intuitive controls and apparently less capability to make fine adjustments to the RAW conversion. In what particular ways do you find it performs better conversions than ACR?
Peter
-
Ken, I'm curious - I find DPP to be an awful interface with non-intuitive controls and apparently less capability to make fine adjustments to the RAW conversion. In what particular ways do you find it performs better conversions than ACR?
Peter
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63223\")
Peter,
I was very skeptical about DPP. In fact for the first year I had my 1D2, I never even installed the Canon software. Armed with Bruce Fraser's fine Real World Camera Raw book, I felt confident that I was using ACR to best advantage. Then, when DPP 2.0 came out, some very experienced folks on the RG forums started saying that they were getting better conversions with DPP 2.0. Some of them had used every converter available, up to C1. I downloaded the latest version and gave it a try. I agree about the interface. I don't like it at all. I miss the highlight recovery capability of ACR, and the precise adjustments posible with all its controls. I'm sure there are folks who understand why DPP has a RAW tab with no curve tool, and an RGB tab that does have one; but I don't. I agree about coarser adustments, particularly the tone curve slider on the RAW tab. In spite of all my complaints, it seem that if I set the tone curve slider so the image looks best, maybe tweak the curve on the RGB tab, and then set the sharpness slider on the RAW tab to about 3, the resulting image has smoother gradients near the limits of dynamic range, and sharpness that is difficult to match in PS even with a lot of fiddling with the USM or Smart Sharpen control. Every once in a while, I give ACR another try, hoping that it will be as good, because I really prefer using it, but I end up deciding that the results are better with DPP, now 2.03. I'm not sure about color, but portrait shooters seem to prefer DPP to ACR for skin tone, particularly those using the 1Ds2. Many of them prefer other converters; C1, RSP, Silkypix, etc. These differences my be less with newer cameras, such as the 5D.
There are some comparisons at
[a href=\"http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm]http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm[/url]
http://www.proimago.net/test/RAW-converter/index.htm (http://www.proimago.net/test/RAW-converter/index.htm)
I want ACR to work best, but it hasn't happened for me yet.
Ken
-
Thanks Ken, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I'll take a look at the links you posted and give DPP another try. I use the 1Ds2 and generally have been content with what I get from ACR and sharpening with PhotoKit, but I'll now do some comparisons.
Peter
-
Thanks Ken, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I'll take a look at the links you posted and give DPP another try. I use the 1Ds2 and generally have been content with what I get from ACR and sharpening with PhotoKit, but I'll now do some comparisons.
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
Let us know how your comarisons turn out. I'm really looking for an excuse to switch back to ACR. I eagerly download each upgrade, but have been disappointed so far. AFAIK, it's 1Ds2 users who have been most dissatisfied with ACR, particularly for skin tones. There are a bunch of them on the FM forum who have given up and bought Leica's with DMR's.
Ken
-
Sorry Ken, I'm still not getting it. I tried a number of comparative tests tonight, and I'm failing to see where DPP is better than ACR. From the way I read the links you kindly posted, I got the impression that ACR came out favourably vs DPP, with a couple of possible exceptions. For one thing, I've been able to calibrate my camera and ACR, but with DPP I'm having to tweak colours on just about every image, and it just doesn't have the tools to do this with any finesse (unless I'm just inexperienced with using it).
I shot Macbeth colour charts as well as detailed still-life images at multiple ISO values for these tests, and I can't see anywhere where DPP is superior. Quite the contrary in fact.
In the RAW editor the DPP images can be made to look sharper, but that's easily resolved in PS and is one of the first steps when I convert a RAW file - capture sharpen with PK Sharpener and noise reduction (also with camera and ISO-specific profiles) in Noise Ninja.
What particularly keeps you using DPP and rejecting ACR?
Peter
-
As a general rule the colors DPP produces are better than ACR. (Although it sounds like that isn't true for you.) It also has a very interesting sharpening method.
Its workflow is okay (watch the video at the canon site) compared to previous canon products but is certainly not the best.
I prefer capture one and RSP to either.
-
AFAIK, it's 1Ds2 users who have been most dissatisfied with ACR, particularly for skin tones.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63267\")
I think I can possibly see how that would arise - when I compare the Macbeth charts in each converter, DPP looks more 'washed out' in a number of colours, particularly red and yellow. The no.2 patch, supposedly representing caucasian skin tone, is notably less vivd in DPP than ACR, which some I guess could interpret as more 'subtle' in a light skin tone? I'm guessing here...
Perhaps you would get better results from ACR if you calibrate it to your camera? Jonathan Wienke posted a good summary of the process on his website [a href=\"http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/04camera.htm]here[/url].
-
As a general rule the colors DPP produces are better than ACR. (Although it sounds like that isn't true for you.)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I certainly noticed a great improvement in the colours I'm getting from ACR after I calibrated it to my cameras. I'll certainly look for the video on the Canon website: my workflow is quite neatly set up with Bridge and ACR, but I'm always willing to learn and change if it gives me preferable results (I'm beginning to think 'preferable' might be the operative word here )!
Peter
-
Sorry Ken, I'm still not getting it. I tried a number of comparative tests tonight, and I'm failing to see where DPP is better than ACR. From the way I read the links you kindly posted, I got the impression that ACR came out favourably vs DPP, with a couple of possible exceptions. For one thing, I've been able to calibrate my camera and ACR, but with DPP I'm having to tweak colours on just about every image, and it just doesn't have the tools to do this with any finesse (unless I'm just inexperienced with using it).
I shot Macbeth colour charts as well as detailed still-life images at multiple ISO values for these tests, and I can't see anywhere where DPP is superior. Quite the contrary in fact.
In the RAW editor the DPP images can be made to look sharper, but that's easily resolved in PS and is one of the first steps when I convert a RAW file - capture sharpen with PK Sharpener and noise reduction (also with camera and ISO-specific profiles) in Noise Ninja.
What particularly keeps you using DPP and rejecting ACR?
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
Thanks for the results of your comaparison. It seems that there is not much agreement regarding the "best" converter. I seem to be getting sharper images with DPP compared to sharpening in PSCS2, but maybe I'd do better yet using PK Sharpener, Nik, FocalBlade, etc. I don't sharpen is PSCS2 until last, as my second-to-last procedure is usually to resample. I haven't tried profiling my camera for color, but will look at Jonathan's procedure. I have profiled my camera for Noise Ninja. I don't like to use it below ISO 400, as there is some loss of sharpness.
Although I really like ACR's highlight recovery feature, my impression is that DPP does a little smoother transition from very bright to clipped highlights.
I'm still struggling to improve my images, but I'd know much less without the input of everybody on these forums. To all who take the time to share their experience and expertise, I'm profoundly grateful.
Ken
-
I don't want to rely on some proprietary format (in my case Canon).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63211\")
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason.
[a href=\"http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=3234&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dng&start=15]http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15[/url]
-
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason. http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15 (http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=3234&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dng&start=15)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63512\")
What, you mean proprietary in the sense that it's not publically documented, like Canon files are? And that developers risk breaking copyright law if they write programs that decode or write a DNG? Like reverse engineering Nikon WB? And that any browsing or cataloguing program needs to take a blind guess if they want to update DNG files' metadata or embedded ACR preview? Or raw developers can't legally or technically add their own raw processing instructions to DNG files' XMP metadata if they wanted to do so? Whatever your feelings about DNG's usefulness in your workflow, proprietary is not the right word.
Read [a href=\"http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=483.0]http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=483.0[/url] for an up to date view on why Bibble don't support DNG.
John
-
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason.
http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15 (http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=3234&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dng&start=15)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DNG is proprietary in the same way that TIFF is proprietary. Adobe own both but choose to make TIFF and DNG freely avaialble to anyone to use without claiming license fees.
Adobe currently offer DNG in the same spirit as TIFF - for the free use of all. So far their track record with TIFF has been good - no reason to suppose that will change with DNG, but the cynic might say 'yet'.
Personally, I am keeping the faith. DNG is too useful to ignore.
-
Thanks for the link, Serge. Very thoughtful debate on both sides of the argument.
I don't DNG. If the format gets fully adopted, I'll be sure to convert all my valued files. Until then, I don't see a reason to. I'm an amateur photographer who takes plenty of photographs, but I simply don't have the immense volume of RAW files that professional photographers have. If I were a professional photographer, I might be more concerned about the amount of time it would take to convert years and years of photographs on the eve of the RAW format's obselescence. From what I understand, file formats don't become obselete overnight, it's a gradual process of orphanage as the new format(s) are adopted by users. If I were a professional photographer, I would probably be cautious and archive in several formats to ensure speedy recovery in the future.
If there's a point where I NEED DNG to use the latest and greatest digital darkroom software, so be it. I always have my most valued files at hand, and since I'm not dealing with the incredible amount of photo-assets that professional photographers have, it wouldn't be a problem to convert my files when my Canon 300D raw files become universally obselete. I just think it's a little hasty to jump aboard the DNG bandwagon with respect to the file format's infancy. I'm one of those who is concerned with a possible loss of data through converting files to DNG... if the process can't be fully reversed, and adobe gives the silly option of including the original RAW file in the DNG, I believe it's reasonable to say that Adobe isn't even sure that DNG preserves ALL of the valuable image data. The file format is too young to risk putting all my eggs in that one basket... in this sense, archiving in RAW and DNG is the most safe, but probably not practical in terms of storage costs for most of us... but I think archiving in TIFF is a mistake, because the size of a 16-bit TIFF doesn't have all the data a RAW file contains, is generally much larger than a RAW file, and since it has already been processed with a potentially obselete piece of software (say if you were to access a TIFF ten years from now), you wouldn't be able to use modern software to reap the benefits of the data you discarded in the conversion to TIFF (this argument may or may not be true with respect to the archival potential of DNG... only time will tell, truly)
I strongly believe that the solution to keeping digital photographs usable in the future is simply being aware of the technological advances around you. When your RAW format becomes unusable, archive in the adopted format. I'm always aware of innovations of software around me, and I think that as digital photographers, we should have great interest in preserving our art (In this sense, whether you are for or against *currently* adopting the DNG format, we should agree on this. We all want to access our files in the future). I think this is an active process of working with our files, and transferring specific files from media type to media type puts us very close to what we want to preserve, rather than working to satisfy fears of obselescence as soon as a new format is introduced, working at once to archive them in several formats and lay our fears to rest for several years while they collect dust on expensive hard drives or digital discs in our closets. I fully embrace the concept of a universal raw-type, but I don't plan on doing so until I know all the facts.
I don't believe we can truly say, yet, that DNG contains all the valuable data of all the various types of RAW files, which may be utilized in the future. There might be a universal RAW filetype which is used instead of DNG. Such is the adaptation of technology. Just because Thomas Knoll from Adobe says so-and-so about his DNG format isn't good enough for me.
-
The file format is too young to risk putting all my eggs in that one basket...
I think that's a key point. I DNG, but I don't throw away my raw files, because space is cheap and the conversion happens when I'm doing something more important, like sleeping.
DNG helps me to avoid "drowning in pixels". There are two sides of that coin - one's the raw processing, and I like the ACR results/workflow, but the other is finding the damn things and their derivatives too. DNG seems the best way we've got to integrate raw processing and digital asset management.
John
-
I think that's a key point. I DNG, but I don't throw away my raw files, because space is cheap and the conversion happens when I'm doing something more important, like sleeping.
DNG helps me to avoid "drowning in pixels". There are two sides of that coin - one's the raw processing, and I like the ACR results/workflow, but the other is finding the damn things and their derivatives too. DNG seems the best way we've got to integrate raw processing and digital asset management.
John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm right with you there. I find it takes mere minutes to copy all RAWs from a shoot to DNG, and at the point I decided to adopt the format I converted over 12,000 RAW files in one go. I set it off early in the evening before dinner and ignored it until the next morning when it was done - I have no idea how long it actually took: might have been 2 hours, might have been 14 hours. The point is I did it unattended, and it frankly doesn't matter how long it took. If you have a slow PC, let it run all weekend.
Importantly, I keep both RAW and DNG. It's belt and braces, but storage is cheap and the workflow overhead is negligible.
Oldcsar made a very important point - keep an eye on the changes in standards / formats / storage media etc., and at some point a re-archive to some new paradigm will have to happen. How many folk backed CD as an archival media only to find after just a couple of years they can't read the disks? Will ACR always be able to read my 10D files?
I personally use an external hot-swappable RAID-5 array, and in addition to that I archive RAW and DNG to separate, off-array SATA disks. That'll probably be good for about the next 3-5 years until someone comes up with a better storage media than the HDD.
Peter
-
From what I understand, file formats don't become obselete overnight,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
-
That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And let's not forget what a DCS 460 cost in those days; a LOT of money.
-
That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, the programs which you used to manipulate your RAW files suddenly stopped processing them? I'm not questioning the fact that a rather expensive Kodak camera was discontinued, and subsequently its RAW file format, I'm getting across my opinion that there's no need to rush into DNG when my particular camera (or someone else's) is still well supported. When it's no longer supported, I'll take the option to convert the files with DNG converter, or whatever happens to take its place... I could do so today with DNG, but I choose not to. I'll take your word that your experience with the Kodak DCS 460 shows the contrary, but aren't we talking about a camera that was made in 1995? With the massive changes in the DSLR market, it would be expected that such a format from a discontinued camera would no longer be supported in modern software. I certainly can't play my old DOS games from 1994 (Lands of Lore, Throne of Chaos) in Windows XP, with the advances in OS architecture and the outdated structure of old dos games. However, there are always options. I can play my old dos games in windows xp with a program called Dosbox. I'm only pointing this out because I believe that where there are enough people who value a digital asset, whether it be photos, games, or software, there are always options. DNG could be one.
-
I’m sure it was mentioned before and I apologize for not reading carefully enough. However, the original Raw file can be embedded as part of the DNG. And it can be extracted again and recreated 'as it was' (as far as I can tell).
See Jeff Schewe’s articles:
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/23/dng-workflow-part-i/ (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/23/dng-workflow-part-i/)
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/25/dng-workflow-part-ii/ (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/25/dng-workflow-part-ii/)
Means less files at the cost of higher DNG file size. Makes sense for me.
Peter
--
-
Whatever your feelings about DNG's usefulness in your workflow, proprietary is not the right word.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, "less propriatary than NEF but you have to embed NEF anyway if you want to keep the original information" - sounds good?
-
DNG keeps all of the original metadata information from any of the newer raw formats such as the newest iterations of NEF, Canon's CR2, etc. In fact, proprietary file could be re-created from a DNG not containing the original proprietary file if there was software available to do so. With older formats (such as canon's CRW) some metadata is tossed since it can't be interpreted but all of the image information is maintained.
Another interesting point is that most proprietary raw files are in fact based off a variation of the tif format already. So the argument that DNG is problematic since it's based off tiff and Adobe owns tiff has little merit since that "problem" already exists.
-
OK, Serge, we agree there. One little point - if, as some say, Capture One can produce better raw conversions than the camera makers' software, then what really is the value of all that secret information? I say this just for argument's sake as my D200 appears to write the active focus point to the secret metadata and it'd be so nice to jump directly to that spot on the computer screen.
I put the archiving / obsolesence issues to one side. To my mind they come down to a future where the specific program, that you really want to use, is unable to read the "obsolete" raw files, rather than the admittedly fundamental question of future readability.
I think one of the keys to whether to go DNG is the relative importance to each photographer of digital asset management and raw processing. If the former plays a bigger role, then DNG has big advantages in terms of carrying metadata within the raw image and in its derivatives, in moving between cataloguing programs, in carrying an ACR adjusted preview that can be "leveraged" by other programs. If the choice of raw processing engine is more important - or should I say if the photographer doesn't really value DAM issues - then there's going to be less advantage to a DNG workflow until other programs offer 360 degree support, not just reading the DNG file but saving a second preview back to it or storing processing instructions in its extensible XMP metadata.
I switched to DNG with CS2's release and feel it lets me lock the DAM down so tightly that I spend less time on finding the bloody things and more time on shooting and post processing. For instance, the DNG contains the metadata, its Photoshop derivatives therefore do, and I save them in a folder that's automatically catalogued in iView, meaning no need to re-enter metadata. Since my current main cataloguing program, iView, can write the metadata into NEF files too, I have questioned the DNG route but the deciding factor is the DNG's embedded preview, cropped, WB'd, etc.
John
-
So, the programs which you used to manipulate your RAW files suddenly stopped processing them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When the last machine I had that ran the last-supported version of the OS that supported the Kodak DCS 460 software died, yes, the programs I used to manipulate my RAW files suddenly stopped processing them.
-
I agree with the DAM argument. One of the reasons I use Nikon Capture is because it writes the adjustments into NEF files themselves (I save them as copies obviously). It makes my workflow even more dependant on propriatary solutions but requires less file management.
And I am very much aware of the file format obsolescence issue.
Generally I would much rather have a completely non-propriatary workflow. But the fact that I can't get the files converted the way I like in a DNG workflow is a big issue. I can't justify using DNG for the time being.
-
DNG keeps all of the original metadata information from any of the newer raw formats
I think Adobe and many other converters misinterpret the original image data somehow. The results from Nikon Capture and Bibble (at "no adjustments" settings) are so drastically different from other converters.
-
They just do different conversions. You get different results with the assorted canon converters.
-
Are there any disadvantages to using DNG over TIFF?
Prog.
-
Are there any disadvantages to using DNG over TIFF?
Prog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It depends what you are want to use them for.
-
Well, I want to use the file for editing in PS while keeping the the EXIF data intact. I also want to keep both the DNG/TIFF and the RAW files for further editing or conversion down the road. Disk space is cheap.
Considering those needs, which format would be best?
Thanks!
Prog.
-
Well, I want to use the file for editing in PS while keeping the the EXIF data intact. I also want to keep both the DNG/TIFF and the RAW files for further editing or conversion down the road. Disk space is cheap.
Considering those needs, which format would be best?
Thanks!
Prog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should consider DNG more as an alternative to the RAW, not the TIFF. It's more a clone/sibling rather than a derivative. Unlike RAW though, its metadata is embedded in the file, and its preview represents any adjustments you've made in ACR (or any other converter that might want to write a preview to it).
Some people throw away the raw file as soon as it's been made into a DNG. I prefer to keep both since disk space is indeed cheap, but I rarely look at the raw file again and just catalogue/control the DNG and use it to produce derivatives like tif files, client previews and web galleries.
John
-
For my camera (Olympus E-1), I find that DNG is not an option:
- DNG converter does not embed some of the Olympus metadata tags in the DNG file,
- ACR gives rather bad results for .orf files, I get much better conversions from C1 or Raw Developer
- C1 does not read DNG; Raw Developer does, but comparing files converted from a DNG or from the original .orf shows slight differences (placing one over the other as layers in Photoshop, with a "Difference" blend mode, does not quite give a uniform black)
- Embedding the original raw file in the DNG rather defeats the purpose, IMO
No DNG for me as yet, although I would gladly get rid of sidecar files.
-- Bernard
-
For my camera (Olympus E-1), I find that DNG is not an option:
- DNG converter does not embed some of the Olympus metadata tags in the DNG file,
- ACR gives rather bad results for .orf files, I get much better conversions from C1 or Raw Developer
- C1 does not read DNG; Raw Developer does, but comparing files converted from a DNG or from the original .orf shows slight differences (placing one over the other as layers in Photoshop, with a "Difference" blend mode, does not quite give a uniform black)
- Embedding the original raw file in the DNG rather defeats the purpose, IMO
No DNG for me as yet, although I would gladly get rid of sidecar files.
-- Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's the same with Nikon, and probably Canon too, but while nice to have, are those metadata tags of any great importance? For learning / exif-peeping sure. But for the conversion tool, your favoured C1 doesn't use the camera makers' secret sauce and yet, with some "difficult" images, still does (objectively) better conversion than the makers' own software.
Sure, if disc space saving is the purpose, it's defeated by embedding the original, but that's not the purpose. Embedding keeps your raw converter options open and means you're not into managing two sets of files.
Your other point is really about subjective preference for certain raw converters' renditions. But think ahead, maybe just 4-5 years. More raw converters are likely to support an openly-documented DNG format than support any given camera format, and with Olympus you may be more at risk than us Nikon or Canon users. Let's say some other converter is suddenly the hottest thing on the block - how will you feel if you can't try it out on your favourite Olympus raw picture from 2006? Will my Nikon D100 files still be readable in every program I decide want to use 10 years from now? And how well will they be supported - like, will I be able to write metadata into a pre XMP file format? Maybe, who knows, but the more obscure the image format the more the balance shifts towards DNG.
BTW C1 say they will support DNG this year.
John
-
I don’t use DNG yet. The reason is that Nikon Capture doesn’t support DNG files and it’s in my opinion the best converter for NEF files. I use Adobe Bridge for the keywords and other metadata en Imatch for the archive. Until now it works satisfactory.
I will convert to DNG when needed. I think Nikon will support DNG format in the future.
I think there is enough time to convert a RAW format when needed. Even when a RAW format became obsolete, there are tools to convert your images at that same moment. Of course this way of thinking is not helpful for the DNG format. The more people use DNG, the stronger this format will become …to a point that even camera manufactures can’t ignore it anymore (Nikon).
…but is DNG the answer? I did find an article (I didn’t read it completely, only a quick scan) that seems interesting in this perspective: http://www.openraw.org/node/1482 (http://www.openraw.org/node/1482)
I can wait.
-
I use DNG with ACR and Bridge (as I patiently wait for Lightroom on Windows), though I've been debating whether it's better to embed the NEF within the DNG or to keep it in a separate folder. For my workflow, the ability to embed information from ACR and Bridge within the DNG is important, and will become even more important when I start using Lightroom as a cataloging system.
-
[...] while nice to have, are those metadata tags of any great importance? For learning / exif-peeping sure. But for the conversion tool, your favoured C1 doesn't use the camera makers' secret sauce and yet, with some "difficult" images, still does (objectively) better conversion than the makers' own software.
Yes, they don't seem important, but they may be in the future. In addition, some are useful, such as the tah denoting presence or not of the teleconverter (DNG converter ignores this tag).
Sure, if disc space saving is the purpose, it's defeated by embedding the original, but that's not the purpose.
Well, it could be one of the purposes... ORF files are not compressed, so DNG could be a space saver.
Your other point is really about subjective preference for certain raw converters' renditions.
In the case of ACR vs. Oly files, it is almost an objective observation... ;-)
BTW C1 say they will support DNG this year.
Well, they are certainly dragging their feet. So is the developer of Bibble, who says that DNG somehow does not fit well into the conversion method Bibble uses, and would force the software into another paradigm (sorry if I misinterpret here, this is what I recall...)
As for the difference between the same image converted by Raw Developer from an ORF original and from a DNG made from this ORF... actually there is no difference if the DNG conversion used the "Preserve raw image" setting. My first tests used the "Convert to linear image" setting, in which case there is a slight difference in the conversion.
-- Bernard
-
Yes, they don't seem important, but they may be in the future. In addition, some are useful, such as the tab denoting presence or not of the teleconverter (DNG converter ignores this tag).
It's not as if the non-standard things are thrown away. All the tags that DNG can't read are retained and you can run the files through later generations of the converter that can read that info. Conceivably one could even script programs like Bridge to extract that info and place it anywhere you want in the XMP.
Well, it could be one of the purposes... ORF files are not compressed, so DNG could be a space saver.
Maybe splitting hairs, but it's a pleasant side effect rather than a reason to adopt a DNG workflow. It is only really an advantage (to Nikon users too) if you also decide to dump your raw files.
In the case of ACR vs. Oly files, it is almost an objective observation... ;-)
I can't really say for Olympus files, but I've never seen a convincing demonstration that Nikon Capture produces an objectively better conversion of Nikon raws than an ACR/DNG workflow. The out of the box rendition may be more pleasing to some, but it's just a case of learning how to use ACR properly. However, I have seen convincing examples of C1 producing objectively better renditions of transitions in highly-saturated areas such as sunsets. A good reason for keeping your options open.
Well, they are certainly dragging their feet. So is the developer of Bibble...)
That's pretty fair. The latest (http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=483.0) I've read is that the new DNG SDK helps but there's still an issue of a "colour matrix", and one wonders if he thinks it's worth the effort.
As for the difference between the same image converted by Raw Developer from an ORF original and from a DNG made from this ORF... actually there is no difference if the DNG conversion used the "Preserve raw image" setting. My first tests used the "Convert to linear image" setting, in which case there is a slight difference in the conversion.
Not sure many people do convert to linear. It's hard to see any advantage in doing so.
Raw processing is just one way in which we're drowning in pixels. The other side of the problem is asset management and metadata. Good practice with DNG+XMP is a whole lot easier than with formats to which browser/catalogue developers have to guess how to write metadata (eg Canon raw on Windows) or use badly documented and unreliable SDK's like Nikon.
John
-
One important point I forgot to mention is that the raw converter I use (Raw Developer) does not currently write its settings into the DNG files. So if I used DNG I would not get rid of sidecar files anyway...
Is there any raw converter beside ACR that writes its settings into the DNG files?
BTW, is that such a good thing to write settings into your DNG file, especailly for those people who discard their original raw files? This is akin to modifying an original after all.
-- Bernard
-
Is there any raw converter beside ACR that writes its settings into the DNG files?
BTW, is that such a good thing to write settings into your DNG file, especailly for those people who discard their original raw files? This is akin to modifying an original after all.
-- Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not the same. Proprietary formats contain allot of mystery meat and attempting to write metadata to it can cause things to break if not carefully done. The DNG format is openly documented and designed to allow the writing of meta data to it so there is no question that wether it can break the file or not; it won't.
That's pretty fair. The latest I've read is that the new DNG SDK helps but there's still an issue of a "colour matrix", and one wonders if he thinks it's worth the effort
I don't think it ultimately matters if they think it's worth the effort or not. If consumers want DNG support they'll have to implement it to remain competitive. If they wish for something other than the color matrix DNG uses, then they can submit a request to have it altered or an alternative method implemented in the next revision of the DNG draft.
-
Is there any raw converter beside ACR that writes its settings into the DNG files?
As yet, no, but it's not exactly rocket science. DNG's still pretty young in terms of product development cycles though. It's partly a matter of customers letting developers know they want it, like Daniel says, and also of using one's contacts to try to oil the wheels.
But clearly at present I don't deny it is best suited to a workflow involving ACR for the raw converter.
Again, not forgetting the asset management side, you really start smiling when your asset manager can also safely write its metadata into the DNG and your derivatives are so metadata-rich they just jump into your catalogue with no more effort. So I believe I waste less time finding and managing the bloody things, and more time shooting and post processing.
John
-
I think I can possibly see how that would arise - when I compare the Macbeth charts in each converter, DPP looks more 'washed out' in a number of colours, particularly red and yellow. The no.2 patch, supposedly representing caucasian skin tone, is notably less vivd in DPP than ACR, which some I guess could interpret as more 'subtle' in a light skin tone? I'm guessing here...
Perhaps you would get better results from ACR if you calibrate it to your camera? Jonathan Wienke posted a good summary of the process on his website here (http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/04camera.htm).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=63275\")
I use the small but powerful utility RoboImport to write picture subject info and copyrights to DNG XMP. If anybody interested: [a href=\"http://www/roboimport.com]http://www/roboimport.com[/url]
Its allows also automatically delete original RAW files after verifying procedure and keep files timestamp. I guess that import workflow as important as post digital workflow.
I suggest to use Adobe DNG format because of I hate various sidecar files and synchrosideproblems.
-
Have no use for the DNG format, the facts its adobe doesnt appeal much either! Sorry!
-
I just returned from a week in Arizona shooting various natural and historic places for my own pleasure. Among the cameras I use is a KM A2 (which Michael so correctly praised). This camera is no longer produced, and the company that makes it has dropped out of photography. Another company now supports KM products including the A2.
I have converted all my KM2 RAW files to DNG and will save both. I have played with both the original RAW files and the DNG files on PhotoShop (Sorry Michaell, but my old Dell won't run LightRoom) and see no difference on the screen or in the prints.
All things being equal, in 10 years, I think it is more likely that DNG file format will supported by the then current software than the A2 RAW file.
-
I use a Pentax K100d, a camera that might not exist any more in very few years.
I do not know if there is one standard Pentax RAW file format, or if every camera has a different one.
Anyway, as importing into DNG takes the same time than importing in the proprietary Pentax RAW, I decided to import everything as DNG.
But I won't have any RAW original, because it will be changed on import.
I still think it's a good decision.
What do you think? ( what would I need the original Pentax RAW file for?)