Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Do you DNG ???  (Read 55135 times)

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2006, 05:36:23 AM »

Quote
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.

Prognathous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2006, 05:41:31 AM »

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.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2006, 05:50:58 AM »

Quote
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

bcf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2006, 06:51:48 AM »

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
Logged
-- Bernard

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2006, 07:17:51 AM »

Quote
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

Hendrik

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
    • http://www.hendrik-fotografie.nl
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2006, 08:16:40 AM »

I donít use DNG yet. The reason is that Nikon Capture doesnít support DNG files and itís 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 Öto a point that even camera manufactures canít ignore it anymore (Nikon).

Öbut is DNG the answer? I did find an article (I didnít read it completely, only a quick scan) that seems interesting in this perspective: http://www.openraw.org/node/1482

I can wait.  
Logged

jliechty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2006, 11:13:14 AM »

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.
Logged

bcf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2006, 01:35:54 PM »

Quote
[...] 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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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... ;-)

Quote
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
Logged
-- Bernard

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2006, 02:48:16 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Well, they are certainly dragging their feet. So is the developer of Bibble...)
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.

Quote
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

bcf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
    • http://
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2006, 03:36:18 PM »

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
Logged
-- Bernard

61Dynamic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1442
    • http://
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2006, 03:42:39 PM »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2006, 03:45:51 PM by 61Dynamic »
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3583
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2006, 04:36:46 PM »

Quote
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

RyanAdams

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2006, 12:20:55 PM »

Quote
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.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

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.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 683
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2006, 07:28:38 PM »

Have no use for the DNG format, the facts its adobe doesnt appeal much either! Sorry!
Logged

MrIconoclast

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 96
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2007, 05:03:08 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2007, 05:08:05 PM by MrPaul »
Logged

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1097
Do you DNG ???
« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2007, 01:21:06 AM »

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?)
Logged
Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up