Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

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

  1. NO!





    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 9, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements


  2. Is that your final answer?
























    Susan
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 9, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Or people who want to use raw converters that don't support their
    cameras directly, but do via the DNG route. There are a number of raw
    converters that can do this. DNG can increase people's options.
    Chuckle! It is hard to tell whether you genuinely believe that, or are
    simply being provocative. I'll respond as though you really believe it.

    Many professionals use DNG. A survey in North America nearly a year ago
    indicated that about 17% of them did so. That was when DNG was just
    over half as old as it is now, and I assume that the proportion will be
    higher now.

    Some of the benefits from DNG are likely to appeal more to
    professionals than amateurs, because it offers some workflow
    advantages. Its use for asset management is likely to be something that
    professionals are more likely than amateurs to be interested in. Ditto
    the ability to store large previews rendered according to the ACR
    settings.

    Most users of DNG use Windows or Mac, and use the mainstream raw
    converters. They use it for its benefits to them, not for the sort of
    reasons you state.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #43
  4. What are those shortcomings?

    Perhaps you don't actually know much about DNG. If not, here is some
    reading matter, more than 15 web pages on the topic that I have been
    putting together over the last year. I hope they will answer any
    questions you may have about DNG:

    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #44
  5. [snip]

    I believe it will be higher by now. That survey was conducted when DNG
    was perhaps 14 months old, with "only" about 80 not-Adobe products
    supporting it. It is now over 24 months old, with more than 140
    not-Adobe products supporting it.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #45
  6. [snip]

    That was when DNG was about 14 months old. It is now over 24 months
    old. I expect the number will be hgher.

    A different survey, (the OpenRAW survey, not just of professionals, and
    no guarantees of being representative), suggested that nearly 60% of
    photographers sometimes or always used software that didn't read DNGs.
    The problems were primarily with Canon and Nikon software, Capture One,
    and Bibble. So there are technical reasons why some photographers are
    not using DNG, whether or not they want to.

    This will change a little when Capture One with DNG support is
    released. (It has been announced). I think the above percentage will
    come down from nearly 60% to about 50%. It is clear from the Capture
    One forums (and the Bibble forums) that some users want to use DNG, and
    it is only the lack of support in their software that stops them.

    Trends are perhaps more important than absolute numbers when analysing
    what is happening with DNG. I think of DNG as a 5-year program to
    transform raw shooting, and we are currently 2 years into that. At the
    end of the 1st year, I knew of 77 not-Adobe products that supported DNG
    in some way. At the end of the 2nd year, there were more 140.
    Unfortunately, I don't have extra survey numbers for photographers to
    show trends.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #46
  7. Or people who want to use raw converters that don't support their
    cameras directly, but do via the DNG route. There are a number of raw
    converters that can do this. DNG can increase people's options.
    Chuckle! It is hard to tell whether you genuinely believe that, or are
    simply being provocative. I'll respond as though you really believe it.

    Many professionals use DNG. A survey in North America nearly a year ago
    indicated that about 17% of them did so. That was when DNG was just
    over half as old as it is now, and I assume that the proportion will be
    higher now.

    Some of the benefits from DNG are likely to appeal more to
    professionals than amateurs, because it offers some workflow
    advantages. Its use for asset management is likely to be something that
    professionals are more likely than amateurs to be interested in. Ditto
    the ability to store large previews rendered according to the ACR
    settings.

    Most users of DNG use Windows or Mac, and use the mainstream raw
    converters. They use it for its benefits to them, not for the sort of
    reasons you state.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/


    OK, as i already said, i'm open to many things. But, for now it seems that
    you are among the few who talk in favor of DNG. Also 17 percent is far from
    a lot, since that would mean that 83 % of professionals USE eitehr RAW of
    JPG. I still see this in just one extra time used for conversion. Surveys
    show that majority use Adobe software, and this means that when you work
    with it, you get one XMP file for every RAW file and there is stored all you
    worked on RAW. So, you transfer photos to a PC, work out RAW's, convert to
    JPG and you're done. Your way there's just another step---converting to DNG.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 9, 2006
    #47
  8. [snip]

    I believe it will be higher by now. That survey was conducted when DNG
    was perhaps 14 months old, with "only" about 80 not-Adobe products
    supporting it. It is now over 24 months old, with more than 140
    not-Adobe products supporting it.

    true, but i think that main point here is that vaste majority use adobe
    software, who does offer DNG, but they don't use it. So, i don't think it
    will change much with releasing CaptureOne. I guess people are happy with
    things as they are.Which means that Adobe still didn't publish any GOOD
    reason to switch to DNG.
    Look to JPG2000---it's better format than jpg, smaller in size, but jpg is
    too widely adopted already so almost noone uses jpg2000 format, since there
    are no GOOD reasons to switch. People are happy with jpg, so there's no
    need. Also space is become far from being any matter to switch at all. HDD
    (or DVD) space has becom so cheap that noone even thinks of it.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 9, 2006
    #48
  9. On Oct 9, 10:00 am, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    The survey identified people who used DNG, not just Adobe software.

    [snip]
    [snip]

    There are several good reasons why photographers have switched to DNG,
    and will continue to do so. See:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm

    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!

    People who have been using DNG for a long time (and tomorrow I will
    have been using it for 2 years) are amused at the view that we haven't
    been getting any benefit from it! One of the reasons I upgraded to
    Photoshop CS2 was to get the better DNG handling in ACR 3.x.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #49
  10. OK, from these benefits, i concluded this:
    i don't use other software...since i find CS2 far more what i need;

    i don't really care about filesize, but since we do speak about it, i
    converted one RAW file from my 30D into DNG and came out: CR2: 9100k, DNG
    8300k, so it's not something to die for, also as i said, space is crappy
    cheap today; also ther's another option in DNG converter which gives
    filesize of 33M!!! (something linear, i think)

    I find metadata in XMP files beside CR2 quite enough, and same info is in
    them as is in DNG;

    OK, embeded previews, but again not important since i use only CS2, which
    includes bridge, which contains thumbnail cache.
    So, i decided to stay at RAW's for a while, at least. But that's me. You're
    happy with DNG, i'm happy with RAW. All ok, all fine. Time will tell, who's
    right and who's wrong, i guess.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 9, 2006
    #50
  11. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    Do you have a cite for this survey? Thanks!

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Oct 9, 2006
    #51
  12. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    Fair enough.

    For now, I have ~700 GBs of photos in RAW. I think I'll wait a while
    longer (another 1-2 years) before revisitng this decision and perhaps
    changing my archive and workflow to use DNG. If the trends continue
    and DNG becomes more widely adopted by other photographers and (most
    importantly) more widely used non-Adobe software, then when I need to
    add a new HD archive drive I'll probably first use the blank new drive
    as a repository and convert existing files to DNG (and reformatting
    the older drives as I clean them up) before putting the "blank" drive
    into archive use.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Oct 9, 2006
    #52
  13. JC Dill

    Annika1980 Guest

    I think you are dreaming. I won't question the benefits of having one
    RAW standard such as DNG, but to state that it is widely used today is
    fantasy.

    Are you getting your info from Adobe?
    Perhaps we could do an informal survey here.
    Anybody here use DNG besides Barry?

    I have gigabytes of RAW files. What benefit would I get from
    converting all of them to DNG?
    The argument usually centers around some point in the future where DNG
    will become the standard. It might just do that, but I don't see it
    happening today.
     
    Annika1980, Oct 9, 2006
    #53
  14. JC Dill

    Annika1980 Guest

    I'm guessin www.adobe.com
     
    Annika1980, Oct 9, 2006
    #54
  15. Chuckle! I think you are the one dreaming! Perhaps you could start by
    asking yourself why more than 140 products from more than 130 companies
    other than Adobe support DNG in some way. Follow that by asking what
    format is used by people who use the several cameras and digital backs
    that use DNG in-camera. (Why did those manufacturers use DNG anyway?)
    And why is there so much discussion about DNG in various forums?
    Not from private means. I provide an independent source of information
    about DNG based entirely on freely-available (but not necessarily
    widely-known) information. Some of my published information is more
    comprehensive than anything published by Adobe.

    [snip]
    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!

    Here is a page describing benefits that many photographers get from
    DNG:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm
    Not true! The benefits don't depend on DNG becoming the standard (which
    it will). They depend on the fact that DNG is inherently a better
    engineered format than any other raw file format. There is nothing else
    to match the following:

    1. It is openly documented.

    2. It is supported by a freely-available optional source-code-based
    SDK.

    3. There are public royalty-free licenses for anyone to use the
    specification and the SDK and to supply products based on these.

    4. DNG is based on the principle of "no unnecessary differences"
    between manufacturers and models.

    5. DNG files contain parameters describing camera and sensor
    characteristics.

    6. DNG has a version scheme that enables the DNG specification, DNG
    readers, and DNG writers, to evolve at their own paces, under control.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1017&message=20290934

    Tomorrow, I will have been using DNG for 2 years. I wonder if you have
    actually used it at all? And I wonder if you know as much about it as
    those of us who do use it, as illustrated by the 15+ pages I have
    written about the topic? (There are probably more than 30,000 words,
    and more than 250 external links).
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/

    There is vastly more to DNG than can be debated in a newsgroup. All we
    can hope to do is point people at the information available.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #55
  16. I only have information from people who have read it. I believe it is
    one of the following:

    Digital Imaging and Professional Photographers End User Study
    http://store.infotrendsresearch.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=63061


    North American Professional Photography Market - 2005
    http://store.infotrendsresearch.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=NAProPhotoMC05


    Probably the latter. Only $16,995.00. If you buy it, please let me know
    if it is the one.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #56
  17. Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #57
  18. [snip]

    I would be interested to know what sources you intend to use to
    determine how much DNG has been adopted by photographers?

    The software to look out for is Canon software, Nikon software, Capture
    One, and Bibble. They are the major non-DNG products at the moment:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/not_yet.htm

    The vast majority of other raw-capable software products already
    support DNG:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/products.htm

    Capture One has announced support in version 4 in the near future. None
    of the rest have. So the latter are the main ones to look out for.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 9, 2006
    #58
  19. JC Dill

    Annika1980 Guest

    I've seen very little heat generated by the DNG format.
    So far, it is closer to JPEG 2000 than it is to the next great new
    format.

    So what? I have CS2.
    So what? I have CS2.

    So what? I have CS2.

    So what? I have CS2 and shoot exclusively Canon.

    Such as? How will this help me make my pics better?

    So what? I have CS2.

    I converted a few files and then realized, "What's the point?"

    No, I don't claim to be an expert in the subject that you've obviously
    spent a great deal of time promoting, for whatever reasons. So what is
    your end? People often call me a shill for Canon, so what do you get
    out of promoting the DNG format? Or maybe you're just a DNGbat?

    If Canon starts incorporating it into future bodies or adds it via some
    firmware upgrade, I'll use it. Otherwise, I see no benefit in
    converting my RAW files into a losslessly compressed JPG file. You see,
    I'm not against the format, per se. I only question your obviously
    biased assertion that DNG is already entrenched as the great new
    standard.

    So here's a Q. for you, Mr. DNG expert .... if DNG is really all that
    then why have both Canon and Nikon been reluctant to embrace it? It's
    not like Canon is worried about losing software sales since they
    usually give away their DPP software for free with the cameras.

    Let's review one more time what you wrote and then I'll explain the
    obvious fallacy of it.
    You said:
    "I believe more DNGs are created every day than the raw files of ANY
    camera model. That isn't because many cameras and digital backs use DNG

    in-camera - several do, but they tend to be niche and minority models.
    It is because so many photographers convert their original raw files
    into DNG."

    Let's put it in simple mathematical terms.
    If there are X number of RAW files being captured, and some fraction of
    those are converted to DNG (D = 1/X), how can the number of DNG files
    (D) be larger than the number of RAW files (X) captured? You see, it
    makes no sense.

    How many camera bodies can capture into the DNG format? Very few.
    Probably way less than 1% of all pics taken, I'll bet. So now we've
    got this huge amount of RAW files in the world. You assert that 17%
    (according to an old survey) of photographers are using DNG either by
    converting their files or via capture. I say that number is way out of
    line. But even if we accept it that still leaves DNG far from the "de
    facto standard" that you claim. I've probably taken over 100,000 more
    RAW images than I've ever converted to DNG, myself. I'll bet there are
    folks here who have taken even more than that. I've never heard of
    anybody who has converted all their RAW files to DNG, except for you,
    of course.

    So let's see a show of hands. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm due.
    Does anybody else here convert all their files to DNG?
     
    Annika1980, Oct 10, 2006
    #59
  20. JC Dill

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Oct 10, 2006
    #60
    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.