Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Case against converting to DNG  (Read 5931 times)

ivan308

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Case against converting to DNG
« on: February 17, 2015, 04:11:58 pm »

I just thought I would post me experience with converting RAW files to DNG.
I often see it recommended as part of the import workflow.

I think people should be aware that even though DNG is an open specification if you convert to DNG you are basically locking yourself into using Adobe products.

While other RAW converters can read DNG files the RAW conversion is not optimal. At least that has been my experience with using Capture One.
If you feed the original RAW file into Capture One it will convert the file using the appropriate profile for the camera lens etc.
If you feed the converted DNG file to Capture One it just applies a generic conversion to the file with less than optimal results.

Just something to be aware of before converting your RAW files to DNG
Logged

jferrari

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 484
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2015, 04:23:41 pm »

I just thought I would post me experience with converting RAW files to DNG.

Argh, Matey, ye be welcome aboard! Shiver me timbers and enjoy yer stay! :D
Logged
Nothing changes until something changes.

pcgpcg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
    • paulglasser
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2015, 04:29:45 pm »

I just read the rules to this photo contest which was advertised in a recent issue of National Geographic magazine...
https://porelplanetaphoto.com/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bases-_de_convocatoria_Por_el_Planeta_Ingles_VF.pdf.pdf

"Once short-listed images are chosen, participants will be contacted to provide the accompanying RAW file. The original file... must be available for the judges on request. DNG files will only be allowed if DNG is the original RAW format of the camera."

I'm in the habit of using "Copy as DNG" when I import, then I delete the proprietary (non-DNG) RAW file from my camera's memory card and it's gone forever.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 04:32:33 pm by pcgpcg »
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2015, 02:23:07 am »

It's just an argument against not discarding the raw files. Keep them as another backup.
Logged

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8961
    • site
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2015, 03:36:04 am »

It's just an argument against not discarding the raw files. Keep them as another backup.

I think it's an argument against discarding the raw files ;)

Jeremy
Logged

SanderKikkert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • flickr
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2015, 05:02:24 am »

Until now I've kept and backed up all my raw files, the older ones are PEF's but at a later stage I changed the settings of my Pentax to write a DNG in camera to the card already.

So doesn't that make the 'original' raw file as written in my camera a DNG ?  I'd be surprised if a picture of mine couldn't go through in a Natgeo contest successfully because I have my camera write DNG's instead of PEF's  ???

Then again I wouldn't be surprised if my pictures wouldn't be successful in a Natgeo contest  :D

Regards, Sander
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2015, 05:18:52 am »

Until now I've kept and backed up all my raw files, the older ones are PEF's but at a later stage I changed the settings of my Pentax to write a DNG in camera to the card already.

So doesn't that make the 'original' raw file as written in my camera a DNG ?

Sander, yes it would, however there may be other Raw converters than LR/ACR that treat DNG in a more generic way than specific Raw formats. After all, DNG is just a wrapper around Raw data, and that Raw data could come from anywhere. There are applications that write processed image data to a DNG wrapper, and that will create difficulties for Raw converters that don't know how to handle that 'Raw-ish' data.

Even if I convert to DNG, I never toss my originals away. In fact, Canon (which is what I use mostly) added functionality to its own free Raw Converter (Digital Photo Professional or DPP) to correct lens aberrations (called Digital Lens Optimizer or DLO) which allows me to retro-actively upgrade the quality of my Raw conversions of shots with some older lens designs.

Glad I didn't dump my originals, which is what they are, originals as shot with the specific camera I used.

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

JimAscher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
    • Jim Ascher Photos
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2015, 10:33:45 am »

I've been quite distressed over the past couple of years that one of my favored conversion packages -- DxO -- is very specific over which DNG files it will accept and process.  It seems to be "willing" to work with the DNG files  provided natively by later Leica cameras but not by the DNG files provided natively by my Ricoh GXR M-module.  As a work-around I have to convert first to TIF, then process by DxO. 
Logged
Jim Ascher

See my SmugMug site:
http://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/

ButchM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 749
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2015, 10:37:47 am »

I just read the rules to this photo contest which was advertised in a recent issue of National Geographic magazine...
https://porelplanetaphoto.com/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bases-_de_convocatoria_Por_el_Planeta_Ingles_VF.pdf.pdf



I would think that the number of photographers who convert their images to DNG ... AND ... desire to enter contests that impose such limitations ... would be a significantly small group.

There are many very good reasons ... for and against ... converting proprietary RAW images to DNG. This isn't one that would be a high priority for the vast majority of users.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 10:52:08 am by ButchM »
Logged

Denis de Gannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2015, 02:52:36 pm »

I just thought I would post me experience with converting RAW files to DNG.
I often see it recommended as part of the import workflow.

I think people should be aware that even though DNG is an open specification if you convert to DNG you are basically locking yourself into using Adobe products.

While other RAW converters can read DNG files the RAW conversion is not optimal. At least that has been my experience with using Capture One.
If you feed the original RAW file into Capture One it will convert the file using the appropriate profile for the camera lens etc.
If you feed the converted DNG file to Capture One it just applies a generic conversion to the file with less than optimal results.

Just something to be aware of before converting your RAW files to DNG

I agree totally with your observation and have always recommended that intended users should do in depth research as to the pros and cons of converting to DNG.

Certainly there are more benefits to users who rely solely on the use of Abobe Products. And please do yourself a favor backup your raw files.
 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 03:12:17 pm by Denis de Gannes »
Logged
Equip: iMac (Ret. 5K,27"Mid 2015),macOS 10.15.6

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2015, 05:20:30 pm »

If you feed the original RAW file into Capture One it will convert the file using the appropriate profile for the camera lens etc.

just recently Iliah Borg posted (apparently a by product of FRV testing) = http://sail2ithaki.livejournal.com/253759.html

a bug ? most probably a bug (that will be fixed soon) - but still stupid are those who discard the original raw files (in whatever format they are written by firmware) and keep converted DNGs only i...
Logged

JNHenry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2015, 06:06:40 pm »

I've been thinking about this issue a bunch lately.  For years I've had RAW files converted to DNG as Lightroom imports them.  I figured that the open source nature of DNG was helpful for long term viability of the files (and it probably is).

But, within the past few months I've started using Capture One Pro 8 to process some of my images.  Unfortunately, C1 can't recognize the DNG files created during the Lightroom import process. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, and I still need to do more research to see if there is a workaround.  But, when I try to import DNGs into C1, they just never show up.

Overall, this has changed my view on Lightroom's "Copy as DNG" import option.  Now I'm just importing the original RAW so I can use LR or C1.

Just my experience and two cents worth.

Cheers,

Jeff
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2015, 06:14:27 pm »

For these companies to update the code to the latest DNG spec is small engineering. Complain to them, ask them to support the format.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Denis de Gannes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2015, 06:58:27 pm »

For these companies to update the code to the latest DNG spec is small engineering. Complain to them, ask them to support the format.
Why? The majority of the major camera manufacturers do not support the format.

When Adobe Lightroom / Adobe DNG Converter converts the camera manufacturers raw files to the DNG format the "Adobe Profile" necessary for processing the raw data is placed within the file header. This allows earlier versions of LR and ACR to work with the DNG files. However this does not assist other third party raw processors like Capture One, since they wish to create /use their own profile to render the raw data.

If they decide to fully support the DNG format and adopt to use the "Adobe profile" then you will have an "Adobe Rendered raw file". You the user will be left with no choice as to how you wish your files to be processed. The competitive nature of the market is what drives the future development of raw processing software and the users will be the losers in the long run. Why would you purchase Capture One or DxO if they will provide you with the same rendition as LR / ACR?     
 
Logged
Equip: iMac (Ret. 5K,27"Mid 2015),macOS 10.15.6

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2015, 07:21:30 pm »

Why? The majority of the major camera manufacturers do not support the format.
The majority of the major camera manufacturers do not support TIFF either. So what? DNG is just another kind of TIFF.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2015, 07:22:32 pm »

Now I'm just importing the original RAW so I can use LR or C1.

better late than never... leave "converted" DNG to where it truly belongs - as an intermediate format (like tiff files) for a specific workflow where specific applications need it and where it shines... but archiving ? leave that to mr Barry "DNG" Pearson  ;D ...
Logged

SanderKikkert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • flickr
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2015, 06:12:48 am »

Ok now I am worried slightly, please help me out here:

So:  if I set my Pentax camera to write a DNG file instead of a PEF file to the memorycard I'm losing the possibility to in the future possibly extract with newer software better images from that DNG file ?

As opposed to the modus operandi where I let the camera write PEF files (which are slightly bigger because the have the sidecar file (i think)) to the memorycard and store the PEF's on my HD, and where necessary convert them to DNG ?

Thanks, Regards, Sander
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Case against converting to DNG
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2015, 06:19:41 am »

So:  if I set my Pentax camera to write a DNG file instead of a PEF file to the memorycard I'm losing the possibility to in the future possibly extract with newer software better images from that DNG file ?

No. With Lightroom or Adobe you retain that possibility. With other software, it will depend if they correctly handle DNGs. CaptureOne say they fully support DNGs generated by the camera.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up