Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

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

  1. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    I'm not aware of any way to convert raw formats to DNG without using
    either reverse engineering or proprietary software. Either way, you
    may as well just use the native raw format. DNG is only interesting
    if the camera produces it directly. In that case, of course, it's a
    good thing.

    Also, I'm of the impression that DNG pretty much always loses
    information, i.e. there's no way to get the native raw file back from
    the DNG.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 10, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    Asking, here, at a local photographers group, in other forums, fellow
    photographers, etc. So far I've had responses ranging from "whatzat?"
    to "heard of it, don't use it" to "yes, I use it" (you are the only
    person to answer that, so far).
    There's also Apple's Aperture which only supports DNG "In", so to
    convert to DNG would require Aperture users to use some other program
    to convert, and only using Aperture to manage and process the images.

    The problem isn't just which products support DNG now, it's how
    popular DNG becomes which will have a big factor in determining which
    products support DNG 20 years from now.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Oct 10, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. true.

    Let's be fair...from, say, 20 people in this thread, Barry is only one
    talking in favor of DNG. so, i'd say he's wrong...it' isn't exactly 17% of
    DNG users :)
    Also all links he gives are links to HIS site, so...goodbye DNG for now!
    OK, he uses it. Let him use it. If he thinks it's better, OK. We'll se in a
    couple of years who's right. It's just...if he IS right, then we all will be
    able to convert to DNG ---that's 105 % sure. all programs will have that
    option, especially CS2.
    BUT...
    if he's wrong...
    then all HE will be able to do is sit down and weep, since all his RAW are
    definitely LOST. There's no program to convert back to original factory
    RAW's, since this is kind of a secret to specific companies.

    And, Barry, don't say it can't happen. NEVER say never. OK, it's very
    unlikely. But if it's just a small percentage, it IS possible. And i want to
    be 102% sure for my photos, NOT just 98%. I don't intend to loose even that
    2 %.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    #63
  4. look...CS2 have this support. And it's used by around 80 % of users. Why
    then all these 80% doesn't use DNG, but native RAW instead?
    You really think that this capture one will bring a difference. Sure...and
    one ant will cause as atom bomb explosion.

    this major-non DNG products unfortunately cover 90% of the market. So if
    they say NO to DNG, it IS no to DNG.
    That's the way it is. As i said before...all other who does use it....it's
    just a marketing stuff in order to attract those few who (they hope) give a
    shit about DNG and are fooled by "usability" of it. So far, i have heard
    NOTHING really usefull...you only repeating a few things, like smaller space
    (i don't give a shit, as i said,space is crap cheap, also difference is 9M
    vs. 8.3 (or in one case 33M!!!) which is bloddy nothing), all metadata etc
    inside (all this is already in XMP file, which is the same), what
    else---aha...possibility to use various programs (why in god's ass would i
    want to use 63 different programs for my work? CS2 is more than what i need,
    so one it is. Or bibble. Or---you name it). i spoken with 3-4 proffesional
    photographers which know other proffesional photographers...etc... very few
    of them even heard about DNG, yet alone use it. So, don't give me that "most
    pro's use it" crap.
    OK, now you'll say all pro's i asked are just small amaterus---i doubt that
    40 years of experience, big reputation, million worth of equipment would be
    of no importance.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    #64
  5. Then we see different things.
    That doesn't alter the fact this makes it inherently a better
    engineered format than any other raw file format. I was responding to
    the false assumption that the benefits of DNG are concerned with a
    future when DNG becomes the standard.

    I'll cut the rest of your "CS2" responses - they don't appear relevant
    to this thread, and my response above aplies to them.

    [snip]
    Thank you for establishing that. For information, those pages have
    often been based on responses in various forums over the last year and
    half. There are few new criticisms of DNG, so it was more efficient to
    capture previous responses for repeat use.

    [snip]
    Perhaps you mean "another losslessly compressed JPG file"? Canon also
    use JPEG lossless compression for their raw files. (Dave Coffin's dcraw
    uses the same routine to decompress both).

    Or perhaps you think DNG isn't a raw file format, but is a processed
    file format like JPEG? It is a raw file format that doesn't resemble
    JPEG. (JPEG lossless compression is not the compression used in
    familiar JPEG files).

    [snip]
    I have never said it "is already entrenched as the great new standard"!
    Perhaps you distorted what I said in order to have an argument?

    It is becoming the de facto standard raw file format, but there is no
    consensus about when a specification reaches such as point - it is
    normally judged in retrospect. I think in future we will judge that it
    happened about 2009, but that is speculation, and other probably have
    different views.
    Nikon's reluctance is fairly obvious - they have a lot of investment in
    NEF, and sell their software so would prefer to lock in as many users
    as possible. More than others, they see themselves as being a "total
    system supplier".

    Canon's reluctance is probably largely NIH, but also they do have a
    large investment in CR2. At a forum in February that discussed the
    possibility of a standard raw format, Canon Consumer Imaging Group
    Director Chuck Westfall made it clear that Canon intended to keep its
    RAW data recording methods proprietary, but also stated that DNG has
    excellent features for archival storage and added that Canon might
    consider the possibility of adding DNG support in future versions of
    RAW image conversion software. We'll see.

    Whether cameras use DNG in-camera is one of the least important aspects
    of the take-up of DNG. After all, only a small proportion of the
    current DNG users in the world use cameras with in-camera DNG. What
    matters most is software - I believe that if NO cameras used DNG, and
    ALL relevant software used DNG, a large proportion, perhaps most, of
    raw shooters would use DNG, because there would be no blockers, and
    they would be able to judge on the benefits.

    At the moment, the 4 main blockers, (or just inhibitors - remember that
    the most prominent writers about DNG use Canon or Nikon), are Canon
    software, Nikon software, Capture One, and Bibble. (Others are far less
    significant). Capture One has announced that version 4 will support
    DNG.
    Read what I said! I didn't say "all camera models", or "every camera
    model". I was taking about any single camera model. Consider the camera
    you use - I expect that more DNG files are created every day than raw
    files from your camera model are created. This will remain true
    whatever camera model is responsible for the most raw files at any
    time.

    The reason this matters is the likelihood that at some future date your
    workflow and tools will support today's raw files. If you still use
    Adobe software, the answer will probably be "yes". If you use some
    not-yet-conceived products, they may not. But there will be vastly more
    DNG files in the world than raw files of any of today's camera models,
    and they will be supported.

    [snip]
    [snip]

    That says more about you than about DNG. There are plenty of such
    people contributing to DPReview, for example. You might also read some
    of the books that discuss DNG - for example, the book that started this
    thread.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #65
  6. Some manufacturers talk to Adobe under NDA to get their next camera
    models supported in ACR and the DNG Converter ready for when they are
    announced. (Pentax provide their own DNG Converter for all of their
    dSLRs).

    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. Perhaps you fit
    into the latter category. Others see things differently:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm

    [snip]
    The subject of how complete the raw image data is in a DNG file is
    discussed at the link below. I am not aware of anyone who has attempted
    it, but I believe it would be possible to write a DNG to NEF Converter
    or DNG to CR2 Converter. (Why not?)
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#completeness

    DNG has the ability to hold everything that is held in other raw file
    formats. The problem with some formats (ORF is a particular case) is
    that they are poorly designed & documented, so DNG Conversion doesn't
    handle the EXIF Makernote properly; and there may be other problems.
    (Note that it isn't a problem with the DNG specification - this is a
    problem with current DNG Converters because of difficulties generated
    by Olympus).

    NEF, CR2, PEF, and some others, have well-formed Makernotes, and all
    the raw image data, and EXIF (including Makernote) metadata, can be
    copied across. (Whether it IS copied across depends on the quality of
    the DNG Converter - I don't believe there are problems with the
    specification).

    In all cases I've tried, (including Olympus!), the following routes
    give pixel-identical results, showing that at least in the case of ACR
    all necessary information is preserved:
    Native raw > ACR 3.n > Photoshop
    Native raw > 3.n DNG Converter > DNG > ACR 3.n > Photoshop
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #66
  7. Keep asking. You are clearly only polling a small subset if you are
    getting responses like that. (It is worth having a look at forums such
    as Cature One and Bibble support forums, where the question "when are
    you going to supported DNG?" arises periodically).

    [snip]
    Indeed. And the same applies to all other formats too, of course.
    Remember that the question with other raw formats isn't whether "NEF"
    or "CR2" is supported. It is whether "NEF of the Nikon D2Xs" or "CR2 of
    the Canon EOS 350D / Rebel XT" is supported. That is because, in
    addition to understanding the raw file structure, products typically
    need details about the specific camera in order to convert the raw
    image data. (This is the main reason for their delay in support of new
    camera models).

    DNG overcomes that problem by holding essential camera details within
    the file itself. That is why a number of products can support DNGs from
    cameras that they don't support via their native raws. And that is
    exactly what we should want from our future tools of choice, so that we
    can have confidence that they will be able to process today's raw
    files.
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/profiles.htm

    (Apple's products such as Aperture, Pixmantec's Rawshooter products,
    ACDSee, and perhaps some others, currently have a deficient
    implementation of DNG that doesn't attempt to read these details. Some
    of their users are getting irritated by this, because they have to wait
    for the software to be updated before they can use it for their new
    cameras, even if Adobe or others have provided a DNG Converter for it.
    Indeed, some forums criticise Capture One and Bibble for not
    automatically supporting even new cameras that use DNG in-camera).
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #67
  8. That is the thing we agree form point one. Common file type to all cameras
    would be very welcome and desirable. But, it's a question of IF it will
    become a reality, since so powerfull companies like Canon and Nikon
    obviously think (at least so far) that they are strong enough that they can
    have their own file type. And partly, they are right. They are strong
    enough. And software developers must follow and support them in order to
    stay in business---simple because there are so many canon and nikon users
    out there. It's kind of endless circle.

    But until above becomes a reality, i still see no rason to use
    DNG...sorry...i never said it's stupid format, or not usefull. Just---not
    justifed, until it really becomes widely used IN CAMERA! Be sure that as
    long as it would be needed to convert, it WON'T HOLD!. People are just too
    lazy, and generally, don't have so much time to do it as it's just another
    time consuming job. But when cameras will write DNG instead of RAW, THEN it
    will soon become de-facto standard. THAT one i'm sure off.
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    #68
  9. On Oct 10, 8:06 am, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    There are 2 problems with statement. First, it is probably less than
    70%. Second, it appears that most users of ACR also use other raw
    converters some of the time, and some of these don't (yet) support DNG.
    See:
    http://www.openraw.org/files/openraw-chart-big014.jpg
    http://www.openraw.org/2006rawsurvey/chapter3

    I have estimated from this survey (which I accept wasn't a properly
    controlled survey) that nearly 60% of raw shooters sometimes use
    products that don't support DNG, and Capture One is a significant
    example. When it supports DNG, the number will become like 50%. Still
    not good enough, but a significant improvement.

    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!

    One disadvantage, of course, is that it requires people to change from
    what they do at the moment, and there is inevitably inertia in a user
    population. (Another problem is that some people haven't heard of DNG!
    Hence this thread).

    [snip]
    [snip]

    Not true, of course. Probably most people who currently use DNG use
    Canons or Nikons. Some of the strongest advocates of it do. After all,
    you yourself make a point about use of CS2 - people who just use CS2
    have no problem with the fact that Canon and Nikon don't yet support
    DNG. There are at least 10 DNG Converters, of which just 3 are provided
    by Adobe. What is gardually happening is that niche and minority
    cameras and digital backs are making progress. I have always expected
    Canon and Nikon would be the last to change, in that order.

    The number of (known) products that support DNG in some way increases
    by about 5 or 6 per month, and that trend has been there for at least a
    year. (End February 2005: about 15 not-Adobe products. After 1 year:
    about 77. After 2 years, more than 140). Some of these are existing
    products that add support, as Capture One appears to be doing, while
    others are new products, and may see DNG as a tick-list item. These
    trends are creating a climate in which other parties change their
    views. 3 cameras announced during September use DNG in-camera, adding
    to the existing list. 16 months ago there were no such cameras.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #69
  10. On Oct 10, 9:33 am, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    The point is that DNG offers benefits to many individual photographers,
    to many users of photographs, and to the industry as a whole, whether
    or not Canon and Nikon support it. Partly because it enables niche,
    minority, and innovative cameras and digital backs to get mainstream
    support, and that is healthy for the industry. And partly because there
    are various ways of converting other formats to DNG. Remember, some of
    the strongest advocates of DNG use Canons and Nikons, including the
    author of the book that resulted in this thread.

    [snip]
    [snip]

    That statement is simply untrue! Many photographers DO convert! I must
    emphasise once again - your own experiences and requirements are not
    representative of all raw shooters. Some people get workflow benefits
    and savings from it. There is a spectrum from "never use" to "have used
    for more than 2 years".
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #70
  11. On Oct 10, 8:06 am, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    There are 2 problems with statement. First, it is probably less than
    70%. Second, it appears that most users of ACR also use other raw
    converters some of the time, and some of these don't (yet) support DNG.
    See:
    http://www.openraw.org/files/openraw-chart-big014.jpg
    http://www.openraw.org/2006rawsurvey/chapter3

    I have estimated from this survey (which I accept wasn't a properly
    controlled survey) that nearly 60% of raw shooters sometimes use
    products that don't support DNG, and Capture One is a significant
    example. When it supports DNG, the number will become like 50%. Still
    not good enough, but a significant improvement.

    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!

    One disadvantage, of course, is that it requires people to change from
    what they do at the moment, and there is inevitably inertia in a user
    population. (Another problem is that some people haven't heard of DNG!
    Hence this thread).

    [snip]
    [snip]

    Not true, of course. Probably most people who currently use DNG use
    Canons or Nikons. Some of the strongest advocates of it do. After all,
    you yourself make a point about use of CS2 - people who just use CS2
    have no problem with the fact that Canon and Nikon don't yet support
    DNG. There are at least 10 DNG Converters, of which just 3 are provided
    by Adobe. What is gardually happening is that niche and minority
    cameras and digital backs are making progress. I have always expected
    Canon and Nikon would be the last to change, in that order.

    The number of (known) products that support DNG in some way increases
    by about 5 or 6 per month, and that trend has been there for at least a
    year. (End February 2005: about 15 not-Adobe products. After 1 year:
    about 77. After 2 years, more than 140). Some of these are existing
    products that add support, as Capture One appears to be doing, while
    others are new products, and may see DNG as a tick-list item. These
    trends are creating a climate in which other parties change their
    views. 3 cameras announced during September use DNG in-camera, adding
    to the existing list. 16 moths ago there were no such cameras.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #71
  12. first mistake i found is there is no color for either some of the time or
    all of the time (are identical). Sorry, i but i strongly doubt that capture
    one will ever come even NEAR to 50%. Adobe is too strong. It's like wishing
    that sony would come to 50% of market share in SLR's...

    second, i wish you wouldn't just copy/paste your sentences as you do in your
    posts. this one:

    quote:
    Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends
    unquote...

    has been shown quite a number of times already. We can read, you know...

    And...you still keep talking about raw converters. It's not the point at
    all. The main point is use of DNG in CAMERAS!!!!!! NOT SOFWTARE!!! it's
    like...someone would say that you can buy a car that runs on different
    gasoline, consumes less fuel at more power BUT you must buy a standard
    gasoline, and then distill it additionally at home in a special device and
    only then fill it in your tank, since you can't buy it at a petrol
    station...so suddenly all would do it...NOOO!!! Petrol station must SELL
    such changed gasoline in order for people to use it! Only then it will hold.

    So, if you have anything OTHER to say then all this what you already did
    quite a number of times, i guess we're concluded...???
    As i said elsewhere...if DNG holds, we WON'T loose anything. But if if
    DOESN'T, YOU will be the only one who will loose (shots, of course)
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    #72
  13. same goes for you...your 2-year work with DNG's doesn't mean that many of
    people actually use it.
    You keep talking of "many photographers"...like? You, anone else?
    I really see no reason why people would use 5 different programs for
    photography. Everyone is used to a certain sofwtare and that is what he/she
    use.
    If those famous advocates use Canon/Nikon and talk in favor of DNG that
    DOESN'T mean that they actually use it. I bet they even use jpg ...
     
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    #73
  14. Oct 10, 10:31 am, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
    No one is representative, and I have always made that clear. The
    statement that you don't want me to keep repeating makes it clear,
    which I why I keep repeating it!
    I never said it did. It is simply an indication that there are benefits
    in spite of what some people may think. (I suspect many users of DNG
    are a bit bemused, and possibly amused, by people who believe there are
    no benefits in it!)

    The view that "many people" use it comes from surveys and forum
    discussions, etc. There has been a significant shift over the last
    year. For example, in DPReview forums it was unusual a year ago for
    anyone to say they threw their original raws away after conversion. Now
    it is more common. It is also more common for people to identify that
    using DNG is the only way they can use the software products they want
    to, because that software doesn't support their original raw files
    directly. I've seen this for Photoship CS, LightZone, Silkypix,
    LemkeSoft GraphicConverter, etc.

    When Adobe took over the assets of Pixmantec, Bibble made an offer to
    Rawshooter users. Some of them stated that this was no use until Bibble
    supported DNG, because that was their workflow. (Before the take-over,
    "better support for DNG" was a constant topic in the Pixmantec user
    forums. Periodically "please Support DNG" is a topic in the Bibble and
    Capture One forums, and may have contributed to the decision to support
    it in version 4).

    Think of this moment as the end of the 2nd year of a 5-year program
    that will transform raw shooting. Then it can be seen that the trends
    are important, and they are encouraging.

    [snip]
    Some people use more than one raw converter, and also use other
    products. That is a simple fact, whether or not YOU can see the reason
    or not. (I don't know why you used the number 5).
    http://www.openraw.org/2006rawsurvey/chapter3

    [snip]
    Chuckle! I doubt if you really believe that statement! If you do, I
    suggest you read their books. You will find HOW they use it, and may
    even be able to download some of their DNGs.

    Here is some extra reading related to the original post in this thread:
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/xmp_dng.htm
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/respectability.htm
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #74
  15. Same here. There's no point in putting more obstacles in the path of your
    normal workflow.
    Nope! No point in it.






    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 10, 2006
    #75
  16. Yep! And if someone doesn't take the time to reverse engineer a native RAW
    file you are worse off than sticking with the manufacturer's RAW converter.
    My findings as well. Plus, using DNG will totally make images for forensics
    totally invalid since it removes all image authentication signatures. A DNG
    converted image/file cannot be used as evidence in a court of law. By its
    very nature, DNG is limited to hobbyist, experimenters, and "open source"
    advocates that have an ax to grind with Adobe.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 10, 2006
    #76
  17. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    Just because some people don't want to get involved in these
    pantomime "oh yes it is" farces doesn't mean they don't
    exist. All my raw files are converted to DNG.
     
    John Bean, Oct 10, 2006
    #77
  18. I didn't say Capture One are anywhere near 50%! They are perhaps more
    like 15%, of which about 9% is shared with other products, probably
    mainly ACR. (see the chart).

    What I said was that the "nearly 60%" of people who use products some
    of the time don't support DNG will become "more like 50%" - a reduction
    of about 9%, corresponding to my guess that the Capture One users who
    also use other products mostly use products that support DNG. I don't
    know whether that is true - perhaps it will become clearer when Capture
    One have released version 4, or there has been another survey.
    I copy it everytime the post I am responding to appears to miss the
    point made by that quote. In other words, everytime someone appears to
    believe they can validly extrapolate from their own requirements and
    experience to the industry as a whole. There is a spectrum of use and
    ability to benefit from DNG, and it changes month by month.

    [snip]
    [snip]

    No it isn't. For example, this thread started as a result of a book
    where the author converts to DNG fairly late in the workflow. (If you
    can get hold of the book, it is chapter 6, page 192). Few of the people
    who benefit from DNG at the moment use cameras that support DNG
    in-camera.

    Ys, when all cameras support DNG in-camera, things will be better! But
    it isn't a necessary condition for DNG to be useful to photographers,
    users of photographs, and the industry as a whole. As proved by the
    people who already benefit.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #78
  19. That typically only applies if you use the camera manufacturer's
    software. If you use other software, reverse engineering is necessary
    anyway. For example, anyone using ACR is using reverse-engineering by
    Adobe - the same reverse-engineering that is used in the DNG Converter.

    There are at least 10 DNG Converters, of which Adobe provide 3. The
    rest are provided by camera manufacturers and "private initiatives",
    because a number of companies and people are keen to enable various
    cameras and digital backs to be supported by mainstream software
    products. (One intriguing private initiative is based on modifications
    to dcraw - if extended to its maximum potential, it would enable any
    raw format supported by dcraw to be converted to DNG. I hope someone
    follows up on that - I haven't written C code for a long time, so I am
    not going to!)
    What evidence do you have? Have you published your findings? This is a
    matter that could usefully be discussed in the Adobe forums.

    [snip]
    [snip]

    Utter nonsense! Photographs have been used in courts of law for many
    decades, in spite of the well-known possibilities for manipulating them
    without detection. The point is that they are typically used a evidence
    supporting a witness under oath, and not treated as proof in
    themselves.
     
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
    #79
  20. Ah, conveniently snipped the "forensics" part out have we? Sorry, but
    photographs that are altered or authenticity can't be proven are not taken
    in as evidence or will be thrown out when challenged. That being said, a
    medical examiner cannot introduce any files/images that have been converted
    to DNG.









    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 10, 2006
    #80
    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.