To DNG or not to DNG?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Quote from: Bob Rockefeller on Today at 04:29:53 PM
How does it help you?
What you could do is let us know if this issue is universal or only with C1 as this would provide a more honest set of data points of whether this IS an DNG issue or a C1 issue. As we both know, C1 isn't known for supporting DNG as well as they could.
Quote
Yes, in general

"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
Report to moderator     Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Continued here.

My own experiences with DNGs are limited because I quit using them some time ago. Aperture has the ability to show the focus points of a camera and to highlight the one used at the time of image capture. NEF files converted to DNG no longer allowed that.

Now I find that Capture One doesn't like DNGs and can slow down if the original RAW is not embedded.

Jeff Schewe no longer recommends the use of DNG.

So I choose not to use DNG as I don't see what it offers me.

Others may find the format quite valuable, and that's fine.

[tho_mas]

Not sure what this thread is about ... but...:
An "Original" is an "Original". An "Original" converted to something else (say ARW to DNG) is no longer the "original" file ... above all when lots of data gets stripped.
So, in short: keep (and work with) the actual "Original" file as long as possible and only choose to convert to DNG when you have to expand compatibility to work with certain softwares for certain purposes.
"Compatibility" is the key here... IMHO. But as long as your proprietary original RAW-files are natively supported in a given software... why on earth would you ever convert your original files to a different file format?
The "secret sauce" in RAW files the manufacturers sofwares can utilze are there for a reason. Why throw away the potential of benefitting from these data (that are NOT supported by DNG)?
For me personally DNG is totally irrelevant...

[digitaldog]

Not sure what this thread is about ... but...

There seems to be an agenda.
That said, there's nothing in your post that one can argue about.
That said, Bob wants us to believe he's found some issue with C1 and it's ability to work with DNG's a format he tells us he doesn't use. It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both. That including the original raw in the DNG, making the file much larger speeds up the process, that as yet, I don't know anyone who's reported this behavior with other raw converters, considering the C1 'support' or lack therefore in the past, I can make an uneducated guess which is which. But I prefer facts to guesses so it certainly is possible this is DNG alone.

[Bob Rockefeller]

There seems to be an agenda.
That said, there's nothing in your post that one can argue about.
That said, Bob wants us to believe he's found some issue with C1 and it's ability to work with DNG's a format he tells us he doesn't use. It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both. That including the original raw in the DNG, making the file much larger speeds up the process, that as yet, I don't know anyone who's reported this behavior with other raw converters, considering the C1 'support' or lack therefore in the past, I can make an uneducated guess which is which. But I prefer facts to guesses so it certainly is possible this is DNG alone.

Never mind.

I've had problems with DNGs in Aperture and Capture One. That's it.

[digitaldog]

I've had problems with DNGs in Aperture and Capture One. That's it.

Not following the spec's or creating bugs can do that Bob.

[Denis de Gannes]

From my point of view using a DNG centric workflow only makes sense if you wish to confine yourself to the use of Adobe products for processing of your raw files.
I use Lightroom as my main application for rendering and management of my raw files. Since Lightroom stores all the work I do with my files in the Catalog file I have no need for .xmp sidecars nor DNG. If I were to use the Photoshop / Bridge/ Adobe Camera Raw option then I might consider using the DNG option.
I also wish to maintain the option of using software that does not support DNG including the software available from my camera manufacturer.
Capture One and Qimage Ultimate are the other applications I also use with my raw files but do not perceive any benefit from adopting a DNG workflow with either application.

[Bob Rockefeller]

Not following the spec's or creating bugs can do that Bob.

Yep.

So why is the DNG format valuable to you?

[digitaldog]

So why is the DNG format valuable to you?

Check the other topic you decided for whatever reason to start.

[tho_mas]

It would certainly be nice to know if this is an issue with DNG, C1 or both.

that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support. As far as I am concerned there's nothing wrong with that. C1 is a RAW-Processor. They can add catalogues, TIF and JPEG editing support and a rudimentary DNG support and you name it. But C1 is really weak in all these aspects. It does shine, though, in developping native RAW files. No other RAW converter extracts so fine, artefact-free and "analogue"-looking details from RAW-files (not even Iridient-Developer... though it comes pretty close). Depends on the camera... but mostly C1 is superior to other RAW-processors...

[Denis de Gannes]

Quote "It does shine, though, in developping native RAW files. No other RAW converter extracts so fine, artefact-free and "analogue"-looking details from RAW-files (not even Iridient-Developer... though it comes pretty close). Depends on the camera... but mostly C1 is superior to other RAW-processors..."

Exactly isn't this what you are ultimately expecting to achieve fro processing your raw files.

[digitaldog]

that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support.

Seems that way but I'd prefer to be neutral* until it is tested and verified. Perhaps by trying the same DNG in differing products.


* I was just called an shameless Adobe Shill so it would be useful to such stupid posters among others to know I do fully believe in the idea of trust but verify.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107758.msg888192#msg888192

[Hoggy]

This seems to be a topic that is often very polarizing.

I, for one, am thoroughly for DNG.  One of the biggest advantages is the image data hash - easily and quickly checked in LR, and I think there might be a stand-alone application too based on a quick Gooch (Google Search  ) I did a while back.  The other more minor one for me is a belt-and-suspenders backup of develop settings inside the file itself.

I may be one of the few that even throws away the originals (albeit having 2 Pentax cams that are DNG-native anyways) as I couldn't care less of using various manufacturer's software.  I'd rather concentrate of the software that does many.  And as far as I'm concerned, if a software doesn't support DNG, it's a software that is out of date.  As far as trying to match the SOOC jpg goes - it is now a pointless endeavor, as I can now either closely match or do much better with LR - and, yes, even C1.

However there are as many different workflows as there are opinions about DNG, so whatever works for people...

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

that's clearly an issue of C1! At Phase One the guys simply don't care about DNG support.

Hi,

That's not true (and has been rehashed earlier ), and although it's not their top priority, they are working on improved DNG support (recently added more support for the latest DNG 1.4 specs, and better color model conversions if the Raw file is embedded in the DNG, and a comment by Phase One's Lionel Kuhlmann that support will be improved).

The issue is that a DNG filewrapper adds nothing positive to a Capture One Raw conversion, only adds more things that can go wrong in the conversion between color models and creates a need for more provisions and validity checks (while the quality of the conversion is not better). There is a quick and dirty way of converting DNGs, and that is to only extract the Raw data block and ignore most of the DNG meta data, but that's not a proper conversion (and I would not call that real support either), although some other converters do it that way.

So a lot of work for no quality gain. I can understand the lower priority, although it would be nice if DNG files were better supported, for sure. DNG as such is mostly beneficial to an Adobe centric workflow but offers no benefits to Phase One, only more work for validation of input data which can change if Adobe changes the DNG specs again, while a perfectly sound conversion from the camera originals is already implemented in the C1 Raw converter. So again, a lot of work for no gain only to help a competitor gain acceptance of their file format.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bob Rockefeller]

The issue is that a DNG filewrapper adds nothing positive to a Capture One Raw conversion, only adds more things that can go wrong in the conversion between color models and creates a need for more provisions and validity checks (while the quality of the conversion is not better).

In my view, Phase One has a little too great a focus on Capture One Pro as a RAW converter, and a RAW converter foremost. I understand it from a marketing perspective - this is the niche they want to dominate. Their RAW conversions, and adjustments, are arguably the best in the business.

But some users of Capture One Pro want more than the bare bones RAW converter Capture One Pro once was. They see it as time for it to expand into the DAM that Lightroom is and Aperture was. And it is moving that way - a catalog, keywords, metadata presets, and the like, are being added.

But they've been slow in coming and buggy in implementation. And, as a DAM, CO needs to be more accepting of file formats other than plain manufacturer's RAW files. DNGs, PSDs, TIFFs (all flavors), and so on, are first-class image citizens for many.

I wish Phase One luck with this because I, for one, would love to move from Lightroom to it. But the missing, or poorly implemented, DAM features trip me up each time I give it a serious try.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This seems to be a topic that is often very polarizing.

Not really, there are just a lot of misguided expectations, like that DNG offers anything positive to Capture One conversions. If I had to prioritize the resource allocation for Phase One, I might have given DNG the same priority. So far I'm very pleased with the recent quality improvements in Capture One, and since I use the original Camera's Raws, I get full benefit (even lens corrections, helped by improved scaling quality in Version 9). I'm glad that the research and development was spent with more priority on improving conversion quality of my original camera files.

I, for one, am thoroughly for DNG.  One of the biggest advantages is the image data hash - easily and quickly checked in LR, and I think there might be a stand-alone application too based on a quick Gooch (Google Search  ) I did a while back.  The other more minor one for me is a belt-and-suspenders backup of develop settings inside the file itself.

We've been over this already in other threads. The fact that Adobe applications rewrite the DNG files makes it a necessity to do image data corruption checks. As long as the original Raw data is not rewritten, nothing can change, so there is no need to verify (Raw file integrity can be periodically checked when backing up and when disk storage maintenance is run). The addition of development settings inside the file itself only adds to the slower backup volume of files. With each small edit of a parameter, the entire file needs to be backed up again, and the same goes for multiple people working on the same file, they need to refresh the entire file instead of just some XML data which can make a big difference on large files and remote access.

But you are right, some people prefer to put all their eggs in one basket/file, and increase the risk of losing it all rather than reduce the risk of irreparable corruption.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bob Rockefeller]

Not really, there are just a lot of misguided expectations, like that DNG offers anything positive to Capture One conversions.

I don't think that's the point for most people.

Many folks, myself included, have DNGs in our libraries that we would like to migrate to Capture One. And TIFFs. And PSDs. And many folks, again, myself included, have catalogs going back years - we want to continue using catalogs and if we're going to use Capture One for past work, and gain it's improved RAW conversions, we need to migrate all the files.

DNG is not an important format, to me, per se; I no longer use it. But the point is, I once did and many still do. We'd like Capture One to be an option for us.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I don't think that's the point for most people.

Many folks, myself included, have DNGs in our libraries that we would like to migrate to Capture One. And TIFFs. And PSDs. And many folks, again, myself included, have catalogs going back years - we want to continue using catalogs and if we're going to use Capture One for past work, and gain it's improved RAW conversions, we need to migrate all the files.

DNG is not an important format, to me, per se; I no longer use it. But the point is, I once did and many still do. We'd like Capture One to be an option for us.

Hi Bob,

I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on. They are not as wealthy as e.g. Adobe, but do create good stuff. Perfect, no, but improving all the time.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bob Rockefeller]

I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on.

Yes. And for me, they haven't chosen a direction that I can get on board with. I want/need/expect a DAM, together with output tools and solid RAW conversion. Today, on balance, that's Lightroom. Horses for courses...

[digitaldog]

I understand that, and as I said it would be nice if Capture One improved the DNG support, but they have to choose what to spend their R&D money on.

I don't understand the idea of not fully supporting a format as specified and supported by others (competitors). I have zero issues with C1 not supporting DNG at all. As a potential future customer, I have a big issue with any format not being correctly or fully supported; DNG or otherwise. And what makes you think this is 'big engineering'?
The one man band who writes Iridient Developer, a superb raw processor, doesn't have this issue. Why should a 'slightly' larger company be any different?

[Bob Rockefeller]

I have zero issues with C1 not supporting DNG at all.

Here's where I agree. By saying that CO supports DNG, Phase One implies that it supports all/most DNGs. But not really. In fact technical support has told me that DNG files without the original RAW embedded in it, can cause CO to hang up and even crash. None of my DNGs have the RAWs embedded.

And in partially supporting TIFFs, one might be lead to think CO will support your TIFFs. But maybe not.

I suppose the trial period lets a perspective user find this stuff out - as long as they don't concentrate on the RAW conversion (which is wonderful) and not fully exercise the DAM.

If they're going to support a format, I can understand that there might be edge cases and bugs. But CO leaves out whole, common, classes of format support. Layered TIFFs? No. DNG without an embedded RAW? No.