Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Gel on April 06, 2015, 07:32:03 am
-
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.
This takes 500 wedding images down in size significantly. But I often hear that editing the images this way (and then getting xmp sidecar files back) will mean the edit is not optimal or will look different when paired up to the raw files on my machine.
This is also a loaded question in that while most of my raw files are from Canon, the Pentax 645z writes PEF and DNG in camera. Should I treat the in camera DNG with the same suspicion?
I only ask this because when I have looked at other editors they state NOT to send DNG's or the edit will look different. I'm talking editing with white balance, exposure correction and curves applied. Nothing more complicated than that.
Can anyone confirm or deny this being the case? I thought DNG was just another container for the same data.
-
DNG has been expanding since it was first introduced. Put simply, DNGs can be the original type which is just like the raw file and contains all the raw data (this is what your Pentax creates), or a later type of lossy or compressed DNG which is much smaller because the raw data is demosaised. The editor should be able to use them for those types of adjustments and, when applied to your raw files by importing the xmp files, they should be almost optimal. The "almost" is because you should review the results carefully to reassure yourself, but any risk is as much about the skills of the editor. So you can try their service and see how close they get.
If other editors don't accept DNGs, maybe it's because they don't use Adobe software or they don't know how to get the adjustments from DNGs back to you so you can apply them to your raw files.
-
Thanks John, it's reassuring to hear that.
Here's one such company:
https://www.evolveedits.com/faqs/
'RAW files always provide the best results, even when compared to a .DNG file, not to mention the .xmp file that comes with RAW is a huge time saver come delivery. If your process includes working other types of files, this isn’t a problem, just let us know.'
-
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.
This takes 500 wedding images down in size significantly. But I often hear that editing the images this way (and then getting xmp sidecar files back) will mean the edit is not optimal or will look different when paired up to the raw files on my machine.
This is also a loaded question in that while most of my raw files are from Canon, the Pentax 645z writes PEF and DNG in camera. Should I treat the in camera DNG with the same suspicion?
I only ask this because when I have looked at other editors they state NOT to send DNG's or the edit will look different. I'm talking editing with white balance, exposure correction and curves applied. Nothing more complicated than that.
Can anyone confirm or deny this being the case? I thought DNG was just another container for the same data.
if you are using Adobe raw converters and you produce DNG files with them or with Adobe DNG converter of the matching version there shall be no difference between working with DNG or original raw files (except of course possible bugs in Adobe code)... as your adjustments are simple white balance, exposure correction and curves applied your 3rd party retouchers will do just fine with proxies (lossy compressed DNG)... if you are using less DNG friendly converters like C1 then your mileage will (might be) be totally different
-
Using lossy reduced resolution DNGs as proxies is exactly what LR itself does when using Smart Previews, except they are slightly bigger (2560 pixels). My experience has been that they are fine for any global adjustments other than sharpening and NR which are better done on the full resolution original zoomed to 100%.
-
That's great news :)
-
RAW files always provide the best results, even when compared to a .DNG file
No, as they are using Adobe software, the results are absolutely identical whether it's a raw file or a regular DNG. If you send them lossy compressed DNGs, they will probably make identical decisions about adjustments like exposure, highlights etc. They send you xmp files, and you apply them to your raw files. So again, probably no impact on results.
You should check that if you send them lossy compressed DNGs, then they will send you xmp files. That FAQ isn't clear about it - my reading is that they mention xmp in connection with raw files, not DNGs. They would have to know an obscure trick to generate xmp files from the lossy compressed DNGs.
Are you using Lightroom? If so, see the info at https://www.evolveedits.com/lightroom-5-smart-previews/ . This would be the way I would recommend - far less messy and error prone than playing around with xmp files.
-
As I understand it, the advantage of DNG over RAW is that the edit information for a RAW file has to be carried by an XMP sidecar file while the DNG can carry that same info in metadata in the file itself, eliminating the need for the sidecar. While the sidecars don't take much space, having two files for each image increases the overall system complexity. My personal workflow is to convert to DNG for import into LR for my working files while copying the original lossless compressed NEF raw file to a second drive as the backup.
-
As I understand it, the advantage of DNG over RAW is that the edit information for a RAW file has to be carried by an XMP sidecar file while the DNG can carry that same info in metadata in the file itself, eliminating the need for the sidecar.
That and any custom DNG profiles one might build but not send along with the DNG. Not having that important piece of the processing could very well produce a disconnect among the parties working on the image. All the little bits and pieces that are scattered about can be embedded into the DNG container (although I don’t think Lens profiles fall into that camp yet).
-
As I understand it, the advantage of DNG over RAW is that the edit information for a RAW file has to be carried by an XMP sidecar file while the DNG can carry that same info in metadata in the file itself
some OEM raw converters do modify non DNG raw files and write their parametric adjustments inside, there is nothing that prevents any TIFF based file format from carrying whatever you want inside...
-
I have occasionally converted my RAW files to DNG and I understand that Adobe wants us to do that and they want to make DNG the universal RAW standard. I'm not sure when the sidecar files appear but many of my CR2 RAWs do not seem to have an accompanying sidecar file. I don't know at what level of PP the sidecar is generated but it's not in camera and, it seems, routine PP does not produce it either. So I'm not sure how badly DNG is needed. Although DNG is somewhat successful, it is far from universal and, if Adobe continues to promote their cloud versions at the expense of local machine installs, I may have to change software - at which time I don't want to have to figure out how (or if I can) to convert DNG back to CR2.
So, no DNG for me. It seems smarter to keep the RAW as originally produced by the camera - at least until (?) there is a truly universal RAW format. But then I could be all wet.
-
I have occasionally converted my RAW files to DNG and I understand that Adobe wants us to do that and they want to make DNG the universal RAW standard. I'm not sure when the sidecar files appear but many of my CR2 RAWs do not seem to have an accompanying sidecar file. I don't know at what level of PP the sidecar is generated but it's not in camera and, it seems, routine PP does not produce it either. So I'm not sure how badly DNG is needed. Although DNG is somewhat successful, it is far from universal and, if Adobe continues to promote their cloud versions at the expense of local machine installs, I may have to change software - at which time I don't want to have to figure out how (or if I can) to convert DNG back to CR2.
So, no DNG for me. It seems smarter to keep the RAW as originally produced by the camera - at least until (?) there is a truly universal RAW format. But then I could be all wet.
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! :P
-
That and any custom DNG profiles one might build but not send along with the DNG. Not having that important piece of the processing could very well produce a disconnect among the parties working on the image. All the little bits and pieces that are scattered about can be embedded into the DNG container (although I don’t think Lens profiles fall into that camp yet).
Andrew-
Just ran across your reply and am curious about the inclusion of custom DNG profiles in the DNG file. It seems that I have two options to create a DNG file from my raw files (NEF).
--First, simply download the raw images from the card via the Adobe DNG converter to my computer.
--Second, open the raw (NEF) file in ACR and (before or after editing) select "save image" and select DNG as format.
I can understand that, if I use the second option, the Camera Profile (custom dcp or otherwise) as selected in ACR will be saved to the DNG file. If I use the first option (my usual workflow) what, if any, camera profile will be saved to the DNG file?
-
If I use the first option (my usual workflow) what, if any, camera profile will be saved to the DNG file?
Either Adobe Standard or a profile you may have selected as a preset I believe.
-
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! :P
Ok. I can go for that. My problem is simply that I don't trust Adobe much as far as trying first to get the hooks in then turn up the expense. Having said that, I would very much like to know what some other advantages (other than the attempt at universality) are. Maybe DNG is more worth it than I have thought. Can you list some or point me in the right direction?
-
Either Adobe Standard or a profile you may have selected as a preset I believe.
Thanks Andrew.
Where would the profile be specified within the DNG converter. I have never seen an option of choosing a dcp profile to be attached to converted files. Specifically, if I create a custom dcp profile, how do I ensure the DNG converter uses that profile?
Actually, in practise, this is inconsequential. At some point every DNG file has to go through ACR (or LR), where the custom profile of my choice can be specified as the default. Correct me if I am wrong.
-
Ok. I can go for that. My problem is simply that I don't trust Adobe much as far as trying first to get the hooks in then turn up the expense. Having said that, I would very much like to know what some other advantages (other than the attempt at universality) are. Maybe DNG is more worth it than I have thought. Can you list some or point me in the right direction?
I find this article provides the main pros and cons and is not unduly long.
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/articles-page/convert-dng/
-
Where would the profile be specified within the DNG converter.
It's applied in LR or ACR via the calibration pane or upon import if you have that so set in LR.
-
My problem is simply that I don't trust Adobe much as far as trying first to get the hooks in then turn up the expense.
Then you should also stop using PSD and TIFF as Adobe owns and controls both.
Articles:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57371809-1/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion
-
Then you should also stop using PSD and TIFF as Adobe owns and controls both.
my dSLM does not make PSD or TIFF ... so they stopped
-
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! :P
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.
-
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).
-
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)...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
There is an article on the Hasselblad website why they stated to use DNG in 2005 and dropped it in 2007.
link ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
link ?
Samsung too, no ? dropped DNG right away once they left the unholy union with Pentax (aka Ricoh now)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
they all have viable raw file standards actually... which is illustrated by Adobe's full support ;D
Irrelevant...
-
Irrelevant...
that's life - accept it
-
that's life - accept it
Ignored....
-
Ignored....
(http://s23.postimg.org/lb26i1d7v/image.jpg)
-
For anyone else, if you want to ignore wankers just go into the Profile link, Personal Message Options. It's then pretty obvious.
John
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/66/6e/90/666e90466652eb555194843333e3e389.jpg)