Poll

Do you save your originals as DNG or RAW?

DNG
- 22 (26.8%)
RAW
- 60 (73.2%)

Total Members Voted: 81


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: DNG or RAW  (Read 25542 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9478
    • Echophoto
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2013, 12:46:08 PM »

Hi,

It has been used for a long time.

It is really no magic. DNG is a TIFF format for handling raw data. It is well specified and the specifications are published. You can download a PDF from Adobe describing it in detail. It is proposed for standardisation.

Propriatory RAW formats are also TIFF containers but the layout of the information and the fields within are not published. A DNG file can encapsulate any RAW file fully.

I did a little test, converted a P45+.raw file embedding the RAW in the DNG, renamed the raw file end extracted the original from the DNG and run an md5 checksum. Every bit was retrieved correctly.

bigmacpro:DNGDemo ekr$ md5 20131231-CF044462*
MD5 (20131231-CF044462.IIQ) = 091651d5856c30e882a3369d44c0c98f
MD5 (20131231-CF044462_DNGConverted.dng) = 397ffc1d9ae1b93998735e6d063bf2e1
MD5 (20131231-CF044462_original.IIQ) = 091651d5856c30e882a3369d44c0c98f
bigmacpro:DNGDemo ekr$


Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the responses, I was not aware that some cameras now use DNG as their RAW format.

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #41 on: December 31, 2013, 01:40:37 PM »

DNG here because it fits my workflow best.  Neither are perfect but DNG has more pros for me right now.  I used to be RAW.  #1 working speed is important to me, and having the smaller file size along with more importantly no cache files, makes editing MUCH faster especially on SSD.  Yes it takes longer to import but I simply do other things while that happens, there's no more waiting during editing itself.  #2 file management is easier because of the lack of cache files - the SSD stays cleaner longer.  Backups are a non-issue, the speed difference is a matter of seconds or minutes.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #42 on: December 31, 2013, 02:44:08 PM »

Andrew.....shame :-)
You know that is a fox....which should not be followed down the hole.  :-)

Says you! I asked a very legitimate question which you should answer. Is proprietary metadata useful to you? And I assume you understand what the term proprietary means and what kind of data we are talking about. The implication of that data upon a possible workflow. It doesn't matter if the raw data is native camera raw or DNG, that proprietary data is only accessible and useful to those who wrote that proprietary data for use only in their converter. IOW, this has nothing to do with DNG. It has to do with proprietary data only one manufacturer can use. Will you use it? If not, it's useless data IMHO.

If I reply to your question in a code or language you can't decipher or understand, WTF good is it to you?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #43 on: December 31, 2013, 02:46:14 PM »

I don't use Lightroom, oh but then there's no use for DNG anyway.  It's an Adobe only format.
Just like TIFF is (and PSD if anyone is still serious about that format).
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2013, 05:01:20 PM »

 
I'm keeping the Raw files Raw,
typically using Bridge + ACR for editing, but not exclusively:
hence we don't want to discard the camera manufacturer's proprietary metadata – either for use in the corresponding converter, or, for a potential future use in ACR (as we can not know if "proprietary" is really carved in stone (may be just the principle of hope)). Aside from the metadata, I find it hard to have 100% trust in the Raw-to-DNG conversion "per pixel".

With Bridge + ACR the metadata edits are saved in XMP sidecar files,
however, we had several cases where the connection between a Raw file and the corresponding XMP sidecar got broken, for unknown reason. Means that the Raw file opens unedited even though it was edited before and the XMP sidecar is still present.

That's why we backup everything, Raw + XMP to DNG.
Also, the DNG file embeds the Camera Profile - unlike the XMP sidecar which just includes a note which profile was used (which is important to keep in mind when 'happily' deleting old profiles, or, when migrating to a new computer).

Peter

--
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9478
    • Echophoto
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2013, 07:25:22 PM »

Hi,

The reason for ETTR is that noise is reduced. If you increase exposure one stop, noise will be reduced by 41%. If you take the P45+ that I have, it has a sensor surface of 48x37 mm, twice the area of a full frame sensor. So the P45+ would have something like a 41% advantage in shot noise. Shot noise is a property of light, or photon statistics. For that reason, ideal exposure is one that collects as much light as possible.

At the dark end, DR is limited by the noise floor, called readout noise. Increasing exposure increases the signal above readout noise. You can make an experiment. Take a ColorChecker (or grey card),
expose near saturation, and reduce exposure  until the black patch clips. I am pretty sure you will see an increase in noise for each step exposure is reduced.

Notching up ISO to achieve ETTR is a different can of worms and depends on how ISO is handled, but in general, least noise will be achieved when as much light is captured as possible.

Best regards
Erik


Hi,

It has been used for a long time.

It is really no magic. DNG is a TIFF format for handling raw data. It is well specified and the specifications are published. You can download a PDF from Adobe describing it in detail. It is proposed for standardisation.

Propriatory RAW formats are also TIFF containers but the layout of the information and the fields within are not published. A DNG file can encapsulate any RAW file fully.

I did a little test, converted a P45+.raw file embedding the RAW in the DNG, renamed the raw file end extracted the original from the DNG and run an md5 checksum. Every bit was retrieved correctly.

bigmacpro:DNGDemo ekr$ md5 20131231-CF044462*
MD5 (20131231-CF044462.IIQ) = 091651d5856c30e882a3369d44c0c98f
MD5 (20131231-CF044462_DNGConverted.dng) = 397ffc1d9ae1b93998735e6d063bf2e1
MD5 (20131231-CF044462_original.IIQ) = 091651d5856c30e882a3369d44c0c98f
bigmacpro:DNGDemo ekr$


Best regards
Erik

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5884
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2014, 01:43:53 AM »

It is really no magic. DNG is a TIFF format for handling raw data. It is well specified and the specifications are published. You can download a PDF from Adobe describing it in detail. It is proposed for standardisation.


Technically, DNG is fully compatible with TIFF-EP which is a specialized version of TIFF 6. TIFF-EP is also loosely used by other raw camera formats but the adoption of TIFF-EP by the camera makes is spotty at best. In point of fact, both Canon and Nikon initially took Kodak's .TIF file format and reformulated it for use in their camera, NEF by Nikon and .TIF and .CRW by Canon. Those early file formats were very crude and caused a lot of problems for early adopters. For example, Canon's .TIF file format could be opened in Photoshop because of the .tif extension but it would only open the preview file of the raw image. If you made the mistake of saving the file it would overwrite your original raw file.

In point of fact (and I know this from personal knowledge) all of the major camera makers (except Phase One and Leaf) really paid a great deal of attention to DNG and it's spec when Thomas first released it. The camera makers downloaded the DNG SDK and pored over the spec and as a direct result of the DNG format, subsequent raw file formats including NEF and CR2 were heavily influenced by what the camera makers learned from DNG.

Even if DNG never becomes a "standard", it's already had a huge positive impact on digital photography and for that, the industry owes Thomas Knoll a debt of gratitude...

Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for consideration in the next revision of TIFF-EP...we're waiting to see what the ISO decides and if the ISO does incorporate DNG into TIFF-EP a lot of barriers to the use of DNG will fall.

Personally, I keep all my raw files as original raw files in both LR & ACR so my backups only need to backup the .XMP files. I do use DNG copies for final files that will not be further edited and for those rare occasions where I deliver a raw file (which is rare) because my renderings and metadata are embedded and not left to the sidecar file which can be lost or separated from the raw file.

In any event, DNG has been good for the industry and has been adopted successfully by some camera makers. DNG is not an Adobe conspiracy to try to control the industry, just to advance the art and science. There have been technical reasons in the past that gave certain issues as an excuse to not adopt DNG...in each case, Adobe (read Thomas and Eric Chan) have created revisions to address the technical issues.

The lack of adoption of DNG as a standard isn't really because of technical issues but political issues. Adopting DNG would not stifle creativity or block progress. Adopting DNG does not require camera companies to lift the kimono and expose proprietary technology. Private Maker Notes can still live in DNG files (except for certain encrypted files such as early Canon CRWs and Sigma files) and hide the camera companies' "secrets". I'm pretty sure that Thomas and Eric can take a file that has been converted from proprietary raw to DNG and take that DNG and reverse encode it back into a camera makers' raw file format that would pass the test of being processed in the camera company's proprietary software. I know the reasons that it's a function that is unlikely to ever show up in DNG Converter but I'm sure Thomas could do this if he felt like it.

I'm disinclined to get into a pissing match with anybody who thinks DNG is a bad thing...if you feel like that, you are welcome to wallow in your ignorance. What I'm primarily interested is making sure facts remain facts and that myths don't get turned into "facts".

Edit: Erik the above post was in response to yours but I'm trying to imply you are ignorant of the benefits of DNG...I started out simply explaining the TIFF-EP thingie and got a bit carried away :~)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 01:45:35 AM by Schewe »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10121
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2014, 10:04:33 AM »

Thanks for the valuable clarifications, Jeff.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2014, 10:43:08 AM »

Good post, Jeff
Logged
John

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5276
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2014, 12:54:30 PM »

The lack of adoption of DNG as a standard isn't really because of technical issues but political issues.

Hi Jeff,

Could you elaborate? Or is this an assumption based on a mix-up of correlation and causation again, only too common in (photography) fora.

When other companies than Adobe do not anticipate a benefit to their bottom-line by adopting DNG (but a draw-back by demanding backward compatibility instead of a brandnew Raw format), then who are we to blame them for not adopting.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #50 on: January 01, 2014, 01:01:27 PM »

When other companies than Adobe do not anticipate a benefit to their bottom-line by adopting DNG (but a draw-back by demanding backward compatibility instead of a brandnew Raw format), then who are we to blame them for not adopting.
In some [large?] part, photographers are to blame. Consumers. Having options does us no harm. There is no heavy engineering and a low cost to provide a DNG option. It doesn't harm those that wish to continue to use camera raw files as is. If the buying public doesn't push, the big companies have no reason to do anything different. It's political because there's no other excuse that makes sense. It isn't technological. Why just a rendered JPEG? Why not a switch for a TIFF because you don't want/need raw but you want better than JPEG?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3494
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #51 on: January 01, 2014, 01:23:31 PM »

When other companies than Adobe do not anticipate a benefit to their bottom-line by adopting DNG (but a draw-back by demanding backward compatibility instead of a brand new Raw format), then who are we to blame them for not adopting.

Their customers....

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5276
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2014, 02:28:28 PM »

Their customers....

Hi John,

So you are suggesting that the majority of customers are willing to pay more for their cameras for the addition of DNG Raws, and get larger Raw files and/or slower capture rates and more battery drain, rather than use a 'free' converter (in case they would like such support)? Don't think so.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2014, 02:33:35 PM »

So you are suggesting that the majority of customers are willing to pay more for their cameras for the addition of DNG Raws, and get larger Raw files and/or slower capture rates and more battery drain, rather than use a 'free' converter (in case they would like such support)? Don't think so.
So we don't even get the choice even if for most, it isn't their choice? If most customers shot JPEG, just providing that single option would be OK with you?

I owned a 5D and now 5DMII. The MIII had nothing that compelling to warrant an upgrade for me. If Canon added native DNG support, GPS, I'd upgrade in a minute.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2014, 03:51:28 PM »

So we don't even get the choice even if for most, it isn't their choice? I


What data supports your use of "most"? 

My guess would be "most" don't even care.
Logged
John

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3494
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2014, 03:57:19 PM »

So you are suggesting that the majority of customers are willing to pay more for their cameras for the addition of DNG Raws, and get larger Raw files and/or slower capture rates and more battery drain, rather than use a 'free' converter (in case they would like such support)? Don't think so.

No, Bart, that is merely your FUD (eg DNGs are typically smaller than proprietary raws). We are the camera makers' customers and have every right to blame them for not offering a non-proprietary format as an option.

John
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 04:02:23 PM by johnbeardy »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #56 on: January 01, 2014, 04:08:32 PM »

My guess would be "most" don't even care.

So the ignorance is bliss excuse. Along with: those that don't care (while outnumbering those who do) means those that do care don’t count. Interesting perspective.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 847
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #57 on: January 01, 2014, 04:24:01 PM »

So the ignorance is bliss excuse. Along with: those that don't care (while outnumbering those who do) means those that do care don’t count. Interesting perspective.

More interesting are those who think that they know better than any others....but are unable to provide a convincing benefit which might make those who's "ignorance is bliss" to even give any thought to the idea.....much less any direction to what they should do IF they believed.

PS....I noticed you totally ignored my question....which I expected from past experience.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 04:28:17 PM by jrsforums »
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11340
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #58 on: January 01, 2014, 04:26:34 PM »

More interesting are those who think that they know better than any others....but are unable to provide a convincing benefit which might make those who's "ignorance is bliss" to even give any thought to the idea.....much less any direction to what they should do IF they believed.

From 2007
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3494
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #59 on: January 01, 2014, 04:28:20 PM »

What's not convincing about support from day 1 of their newly-released camera?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Up