Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JC Dill, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. yep. My opinion too. Adobe will make sure that all who use DNG will HAVE to
    buy at least one of their products. They would be stupid if they wouldn't do
    so. And secondly, all those who (for now) refuse to use DNG, will make sure
    that their format is supported by their software, so if all else goes wrong,
    a person will still have original software available to open files.

    At last, you all act like you shoot photos, bury them and forget for ten
    years, and then when you want to open them---bang---there is NO software to
    Wake up, folks! All who use digital imaging regularly monitor all changes
    (at least every now and then) and so all will have PLENTY of time do act in
    a case of incoming dissaster. It won't happen overnight, you know.
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"

    Because you have missed the point. It is largely irrelevant what
    cameras output DNG! The vast majority of people in the world who use
    DNG don't use cameras that output DNG. All key writers who advocate DNG
    don't use such cameras - they typically use Canons and Nikons. (I use

    The raw formats of between 150 and 200 cameras and digital backs can be
    converted to DNG. That includes nearly all the popular cases, and large
    numbers of less popular cases. In fact, no one knows the number,
    because there are several DNG Converters written by "amateurs" and
    others with a special interest. THAT is the nature of DNG - you don't
    need to inform anyone, you just use it, and it is up to you whether you
    publicise this.

    What matters is what can be done with those DNGs. You can supply them
    to the Library of Congress, who favour DNG over other raw formats. Or
    you can process them with a raw converter, etc.

    Some software supports DNG files where they don't support the original
    raw files. Some people use DNG because their software of choice won't
    support their camera by any other means.

    Some software supports DNG and original files in parallel.

    Some software doesn't support DNG. The software of Canon, Nikon, Phase
    One, and Bibble, are the main examples. (There are others too). Phase
    One will soon support DNG. There is a decreasing list of important
    software that doesn't support DNG. More than 140 (not-Adobe) products
    support DNG, from more than 130 companies.

    The balance changes month by month - entirely one way! Since DNG was
    launched, between 5 and 6 products per month supported it for the first
    time. In September 2006, the number was smaller - I learned of "just" 3

    I'm sure you will jump aboard eventually - the question is "when?" I'm
    sure this will be within 3 years, but I don't know how much sooner.
    Barry Pearson, Oct 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. On Oct 8, 7:13 pm, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"

    OBVIOUSLY not true! Anyone can have a full DNG-based workflow without
    buying ANYTHING from Adobe. In fact, without using ANY Adobe software,
    bought or not. THAT is the nature of DNG - a freely usable raw file
    format that is licensed for everyone to use and that doesn't need
    registration or permission from Adobe.

    Many people already do this. For example, convert their Sigma/Foveon
    X3F files to DNG then open then in Silkypix. And here are some other
    cases where not-Adobe software can process DNG files but NOT the
    original raw files:
    Barry Pearson, Oct 8, 2006
  4. On Oct 8, 7:04 pm, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    Some people believe that Canon & Nikon are opposed to Adobe. They
    believe that those companies would not use an Adobe specification. In
    fact, both of those companies use TIFF - and TIFF is owned by Adobe,
    just as DNG is. Those companies are not inherently opposed to Adobe.

    There is no need whatsoever for Canon and Nikon to accept DNG! The vast
    majority of the people in the world who currently use DNG don't use
    cameras that output DNG - in fact, they probably mostly use Canon and

    Here is an illustration of who uses which software:


    Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends
    on their workflow and the tools they use. (The situation gradually
    improves over time). Not everyone can get immediate benefit yet, or
    enough benefit to counter any perceived disadvantages. So any
    photographer who sees no current personal benefit in using DNG, and
    assumes therefore that there are no benefits to any other
    photographers, is wrong!
    Barry Pearson, Oct 8, 2006

  5. that can be true...although i'm not one of them. It's just...those companies
    believe that they doesn't need to do this since they are strong enough to
    have it's own format and yet sell enough. ANd works (for now).
    this explains that Adobe is most widely used. Nothing on who uses DNG.

    But, don't get me wrong...i have nothing against DNG. I just find it useless
    (for now)
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 8, 2006
  6. like i said...if developing will go this way...why not. But, i'm still sure
    that until most of common used cameras will have DNG as OUTPUT instead of
    RAW, CR2 etc....DNG won't have much of a future. It's because, say, a man
    with 500 shots per day just CAN'T afford to convert, say, 15.000 shots from
    RAW to DNG beside RAW to JPG, which is unfortunately a must too many times
    already. Just another loos of time. That's why. That's why lower known
    companies done it sooner in order to (hoepfully) increase sale of their
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 8, 2006
  7. i strongly hope you're right. It's just...bad past, i believe... note that
    PDF can be edited in a number of non-adobe programs, but nowhere as
    extensive as in Acrobat...
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 8, 2006
  8. DNG doesn't require Adobe software. There are more than 140 not-Adobe
    products from more than 130 companies that support DNG in some way:

    There is a royalty-free license for anyone to use DNG and supply
    products conforming to it:

    What is at least as important is that there is no such license for
    Canon and Nikon raw file formats. You know you are not going to pay
    anything to use DNG, but what about CR2 or NEF?

    Those posts and threads happen daily, even hourly. You need to be in
    those forums - no one is going to tell you every few hours that there
    are more posts. Obviously you can look at the Adobe forums, as I and
    many others do. We get a constant stream of up to date information of
    the subject. Or look at the DPReview forums. There is LOT going on
    there. Anyone not looking at those forums is perhaps out of touch with
    this topic.

    For those who wants to catch up, here is the most comprehensive source
    Barry Pearson, Oct 8, 2006
  9. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    You can't blame Adobe for the quality of non-Adobe programs.
    If they want to write a PDF editor as comprehensice as
    Acrobat there's nobody preventing them from doing so.

    Exactly the same situation already applies to DNG; some
    non-Adobe software (like Silkypix) provides very
    comprehensive DNG support, others have none. Adobe don't
    control this, the individual software producers do.
    John Bean, Oct 8, 2006

  10. right....who knows what caused this lack of non-adobe pdf support....But,
    then again, pdf is not exactly meant for editing, but rather for end-product
    viewing, so not many people really edit pdf, since they always keep
    originals (i guess---since it's only logical).
    i'd say...let's wait and see...time will tell...
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 8, 2006
  11. You make some valid points. What I'm seeing, especially in this group, are
    people that don't want to pay their dues and upgrade to the current version
    of Photoshop or spend $99 for Nikon's Capture 4. The other subset of people
    using DNG are your typical "open source" or "anti this" or "anti that"
    malcontent. This is usually the same crowd that spite their face cutting of
    their nose by using an inferior browser because they don't want to use a MS
    product. Time will tell by sorting it out. Truthfully, anyone serious
    about their workflow and actually making money from their photography isn't
    using DNG.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 8, 2006
  12. If you are a hobbyist or someone that doesn't value your time than using DNG
    is for you. If you are serious about your photography and making money from
    it you work with your native RAW format. There are just too many
    shortcomings with DNG to make it a viable format for the professional.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 8, 2006
  13. I suspect 17% is awfully high. What I'm finding is spammers are sending DNG
    files via e-mail now. I don't know what purpose they serve spammers, but I
    don't open DNG files from spammers.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 8, 2006
  14. Bollocks! Post your proof.
    John McWilliams, Oct 8, 2006
  15. In a very recent post you stated flat out none do. Hmmmm.

    You certainly get some erudite spam. Do you open any files at all from
    spammers? Oh, right; you're on windows, so you probably have some well
    founded fears about that.
    John McWilliams, Oct 8, 2006
  16. JC Dill

    Pete D Guest

    Couldn't think of those! ;-)
    Pete D, Oct 8, 2006
  17. JC Dill

    Pete D Guest

    Thanks, couldn't think of those. ;-)
    Pete D, Oct 8, 2006
  18. Huh? I'm disputing the "suspected" 17% figure? It does seem awfully high
    from "0" doesn't it?
    Nope, and I don't do telephone surveys either. Granted my telephone is
    Windows compliant, but that's not the issue. I have no fears about my
    Windows platform since it's bulletproof.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 8, 2006
  19. Nonsense! Are you using DNG?

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 8, 2006
  20. Irrelevant; I'm but one pro among hundreds here. But, I just used it
    mintues ago, even though I shoot Canon, where the arguments for using it
    are a whiter shade of pale.

    Fix your sig.!
    John McWilliams, Oct 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.