I'm confused as hell over Raw vs DNG processing differences and would like help

[rdonson]

Adobe treats proprietary raws as read only. So any XMP metadata has to be saved to a sidecar file (or a database). This isn't an issue with DNG, the container can accept this data and since Adobe controls it, they have no issues writing this data in their container. There are many other advantages to the format besides storing XMP data inside a container with raw! Lots more. But if DNG isn't for you, that's totally cool. Be useful to make the decision fully understanding what DNG can provide and where it can be a slight workflow issue. For those of us that understand the usefulness of DNG, well it's darn useful! 

I have no problem with TIFFs or DNGs from a standards perspective.  While Adobe (Aldus) created the standards they are part of ISO and openly available to all.

Where I have a disconnect is the advantages of DNG over RAW.  If you could point me to some info on the advantages and perhaps pros and cons I'd appreciate it.   

[digitaldog]

Where I have a disconnect is the advantages of DNG over RAW. 

DNG is (it can be) raw data. It's just a container like TIFF. You can put other stuff in it. You can put stuff in it that 'it' can't understand (proprietary metadata). If you think that camera maker proprietary data is important, archive the proprietary raw too or just use that format. I personally see no advantage to the proprietary raw outside the sensor data which in a DNG is raw. I see advantages in placing a rendered JPEG preview, profile and metadata inside the container with the raw. There are issues in terms of backing up that data (timing is going to be important to some). Otherwise I see zero downsides to DNG. I have several non Adobe products that process them as well. I'd like to put more stuff inside a DNG (lens profile comes to mind).

[AlterEgo]

I personally see no advantage to the proprietary raw

advantages naturally are  - no need to disclose your developments to 3rd parties in advance, no need to get approval from Adobe if you want to implement something new - you can implement as you see fit and Adobe will have to follow if your marketshare is noticeable (not even big - just noticeable, Panasonic & software optics correction is the fine example)...

[AlterEgo]

I'd like to put more stuff inside a DNG (lens profile comes to mind).

some of that data is already there (can be put there), once Adobe was forced to follow Panasonic embedding that in their raws

[BobShaw]

Sometimes I outsource my editing to a third party company and a lot of the time they suggest I send in compressed DNGs at 2000px across the long edge.
Can anyone confirm or deny this being the case? I thought DNG was just another container for the same data.

I would avoid anyone who said I should compress my files. Can't they cope with large files? What if you want a big print?

DNG does not contain all the same information as raw. There are good reasons why almost no camera manufacturer uses it.
There is an article on the Hasselblad website why they stated to use DNG in 2005 and dropped it in 2007.

To me it is just an additional unnecessary step along a proprietary road and doubles your storage.

[AlterEgo]

DNG does not contain all the same information as raw.

DNG converted from the original raw file (DNG or not) might not contain all the same information either by intent (and Adobe, as one of the providers, a main one of the conversion software, at different moments in time did different decisions as to what shall be transferred) or by error (easy to find)... however if you preserve your original raw file and just consider DNG as an intermediate workflow option then the risk is less... certainly you can become a captive user, but then it is like this with any raw converter and/or DAM system too.

[Manoli]

There is an article on the Hasselblad website why they stated to use DNG in 2005 and dropped it in 2007.

link ?

[john beardsworth]

Whether or not Hasselblad still use DNG (but his Pentax does, as do Leica...) is pretty irrelevant to the OP's question which was whether he should send smaller, lossy DNGs for outsourced editing.

He is "talking editing with white balance, exposure correction and curves applied. Nothing more complicated than that." So it's a perfectly viable workflow, and his outsourcing company appear to return the results in a way that allows him to apply those edits to the original raw or DNG files.

[BobShaw]

link ?

Just went hunting for it and it seems to have disappeared. It was mentioned here.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=78883.0;wap2

Suffice to say it was dropped because it limited new features like lens corrections as new ones come out.

[john beardsworth]

And from what I recall, it pretty well said "we can't figure out how to store our proprietary info in DNG", which doesn't say much about them (at least back in 2007). Still, Hasselblad's failings are irrelevant to the OP's question.

[AlterEgo]

link ?

Samsung too, no ? dropped DNG right away once they left the unholy union with Pentax (aka Ricoh now)

[BobShaw]

And from what I recall, it pretty well said "we can't figure out how to store our proprietary info in DNG", which doesn't say much about them (at least back in 2007). Still, Hasselblad's failings are irrelevant to the OP's question.

Really?
Why should any manufacturer limit themselves to another companies ability to keep up, let alone try to make do.

[john beardsworth]

Really?
Why should any manufacturer limit themselves to another companies ability to keep up, let alone try to make do.

It's more a case of the manufacturer failing to keep up though, isn't it?

[Denis de Gannes]

It's more a case of the manufacturer failing to keep up though, isn't it?

Keep up with who "Adobe"? I guess this is valid if you consider Adobe to the "controller".

[john beardsworth]

Keep up with who "Adobe"? I guess this is valid if you consider Adobe to the "controller".

Keep up with what DNG actually allowed them to do. Hasselblad's reasoning was a smokescreen, but it suits those with anti-Adobe agendas, doesn't it?

But as I keep pointing out, defending some camera makers' failure to adopt a viable raw file standard is a completely different issue and is unrelated to OP's proposed workflow.

[BobShaw]

defending some camera makers' failure to adopt a viable raw file standard is a completely different issue and is unrelated to OP's proposed workflow.

Hasselblad did adopt it  and dropped it two years later for very clear reasons, as has almost every other camera manufacturer.
Anyway who cares. Believe what you wish.

As for the ops workflow, as pointed DNG is, in my opinion a completely wasted step, especially if you are going to compress it.

[john beardsworth]

Hasselblad did adopt it  and dropped it two years later for very clear reasons, as has almost every other camera manufacturer.
Anyway who cares. Believe what you wish.

As for the ops workflow, as pointed DNG is, in my opinion a completely wasted step, especially if you are going to compress it.

You obviously care enough to have shoehorned your anti-Adobe factoid into the thread. Read what the OP is trying to achieve, and follow the link to his outsourced editor where you'll see they take advantage of a Lightroom smart preview (compressed DNGs) workflow. For the range of adjustments he says he wants to outsource, you'll see that transmitting compressed DNGs makes lots of sense. He then gets back a catalogue with adjustments that he can automatically apply to his originals, whether they are proprietary raw files or the DNGs that his Pentax MF magically produces.

[digitaldog]

You obviously care enough to have shoehorned your anti-Adobe factoid into the thread.

Par for the course. They can't help themselves, they can't help the OP either.

[AlterEgo]

some camera makers' failure to adopt a viable raw file standard

they all have viable raw file standards actually... which is illustrated by Adobe's full support 

[john beardsworth]

they all have viable raw file standards actually... which is illustrated by Adobe's full support 

Irrelevant...