Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

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

  1. ok, no problem...Barry did say 17%...
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. ok...thing is going round and round...i give won.
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. JC Dill

    Annika1980 Guest

    Perhaps it is because we are all outside freezing to death while you're
    in your kitchen standing over the stove commenting on the nice heat it
    is generating.
    Well, we ain't feelin it.

    You never did answer what your end of it is. Are you writing a book on

    Now would I do that?


    I wouldn't be too sure about that .....I take lots of pics.


    As Rita and others have mentioned, the use of DNG is an obstacle in the
    It is another step that is unneccessary. I'm already the world's worst
    at not backing up my files. You think I'm gonna spend even more money
    and time to make DNG duplicates of my RAW files for no reason other
    than the assumption that Paint Shop Pro XXXIII won't support my RAW
    files in the year 2036? If DNG had some more features like the
    "Recover Edges" thing that would contribute to the quality of the pic
    then I'd be more apt to use it. Otherwise, it's just a redundant step.
    And you know how the dictionary defines "redundant."

    redundant: see REDUNDANT
    Annika1980, Oct 10, 2006
  4. SNIP
    Why? If one has the original Raw file, why on earth would one want to
    convert to DNG and back again??? Besides, do you think that would work
    with the data verification units?
    Only Olympus, or are they the only *known* issue??
    Which wasn't the case for earlier versions of DNG, notably the black
    pixel information from Canon Raws that was lost in the conversion. You
    state on your site that you delete the original Raws after conversion
    to DNG, I can only hope you didn't use Canon Raws at the time.

    How certain can one be that there is no other proprietary data issue
    with the current DNG specs? After all, the argument often used is
    "poorly documented proprietary Raw".
    Which ONLY proves that Adobe doesn't cripple the *subset of data* it
    uses for its proprietary Raw conversion. See the above example, it
    apparently doesn't/didn't use the black pixel data to control banding
    in CR2 Raws.
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 10, 2006
  5. Define "better engineered". Do you happen to know how the proprietary
    Raw file formats are engineered?

    That you've spent a great deal of time promoting DNG, for whatever
    reason, was already established ;-)

    You are free to expect whatever you want, but do you base that
    expectation on something verifiable (something better than having
    heard about a survey, that would need to be bought to verify)?
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 10, 2006
  6. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    Meanwhile you "cite" a report that is not public for your claim that
    17% of professional photographers use DNG - but so far the ONLY one
    who I've personally heard uses DNG is YOU.
    Of course. So I'll wait until I'm sure that a format is better
    supported than the format I'm presently using (RAW) before I change my
    photo archives.
    Yes, I know.
    It sounds great, in theory.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
    practice, there is. And there lies the rub.
    Yet Aperture, RawShooter, ACDSee, Capture One, and Bibble are all very
    popular products. The fact that none of them properly supports DNG is
    another indication that DNG is not yet "widely supported" enough for
    me to use it.

    JC Dill, Oct 10, 2006
  7. JC Dill

    JC Dill Guest

    None of which you can provide public cites for. Until we can SEE the
    cites, it's all just your word. Since there are apparently no other
    DNG users on *this* forum, your claim that they abound on other forums
    seems a bit... unlikely.

    How about some URLs to forum discussions where *other* people share
    that they are using DNG?

    JC Dill, Oct 10, 2006
  8. He also said it was a survey of pro photogs. A look at a thread on
    usenet as to trends and probabilities must have a std. deviation factor
    of very high magnitude. .....
    John McWilliams, Oct 10, 2006
  9. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    Since your claim that there are no other DNG users on this
    forum is demonstrably false, your argument against Barry's
    claim is a bit... weak.
    John Bean, Oct 10, 2006
  10. JC Dill

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Why do you use DNG? What do you get out of it? Just asking.
    Paul Rubin, Oct 10, 2006
  11. too---maybe you will be able to answer more than barry, who keeps
    repeating useless "benefits"..
    I'd really like to hear some REAL ones...
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
  12. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    In order of importance:

    1. All standard metadata (EXIF, IPTC, XMP) is retained in
    the raw file and can be safely edited by compliant software
    - not just Adobe products. It means keywords, copyright,
    location, etc etc stay with the file (and any derivatives)
    rather than in some database on a PC. This applies no matter
    what camera I'm using.

    2. It gives me the ability to use my raw converter of choice
    with camera formats it doesn't natively support. As an
    example my old Sigma SD9 is long gone, but the 6000 or so
    X3F files that wouldn't open in Silkypix (my preferred
    converter) but work just fine when converted to DNG.

    3. I can generate full-size embedded previews for use by
    almost any image viewer, even for camera raw formats that
    don't normally have any embedded preview images. Panasonic
    is one example of this, and it makes browsing much faster.

    4. It roughly halves my storage requirements. This is not
    particularly important to me but it's a bonus. Space savings
    are less with compressed raw files from some cameras, but
    most of mine shrink dramatically when converted to DNG.

    So that's why I use DNG, and it's absolutely nothing to do
    with hype from Barry or anybody else. Barry's facts about
    DNG are accurate and match my experience of it, but he does
    get a bit evangelical at times and this can make people
    skeptical about the whole subject. Sometimes "less is more"
    Barry ;-)

    Some of the things that are important to me may be
    unimportant to others, people have to judge for themselves.
    Best way to judge is to try it and see if it does anything
    to your advantage without losing anything that matters to
    you. In my case I gained the advantages I listed, I lost the
    ability to use the raw converter supplied by the camera
    maker... which was no big deal to me. YMMV.
    John Bean, Oct 10, 2006
  13. JC Dill

    C Wright Guest

    Just to additionally counter the argument that "nobody" here uses DNG, I use
    it also. I have not previously posted because I don't feel particularly
    evangelical about spreading the word about DNG and because I thought that
    Barry was explaining DNG's advantages better than I could. The main reason
    that I use it is because of item #1, above. I also use it because I feel
    that DNG files will be supported years from now when Canon has long ago
    abandoned CR2 for CR25. I recognize that I could be totally wrong about
    file support issue, but that is my opinion.
    C Wright, Oct 10, 2006

  14. all above metadata is also included in XMP file, which can be placed in the
    same folder as original CR2 files are, not in a database. These files can
    also be edited by other software, since XMP data is THE SAME as one in DNG.
    So, here i see no benefit.
    OK, here's one point for DNG.
    hm...since i use only one program, it's also not of an importance for me.
    Bridge stores thumbnails for me.

    obviously Canon raw's are compressed then, because my CR2 file 9M shrinks
    only to 8.3M, so it's not worthed that extra time used.
    Ok, you made your point and you explained it just fine. That's what Barry in
    all his posts didn't. You found at least one point in favor to DNG. Good for
    you. Me...not yet.
    But i still claim that DNG's aren't widely used, as Barry said. And i still
    claim that DNG will become de-facto standard only when it will be used in
    cameras instead of current raw format. Not sooner.
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
  15. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    Well I do :)

    You may like having tens of thousands of "sidecar" files
    cluttering up your storage, I don't.

    But it's our individual choice, I can understand this
    doesn't bother you.
    Ok :)
    John Bean, Oct 10, 2006
  16. yeah, i know what you mean...but, since i use cr2 files only in ACR, they
    doesn't really bother me. Bridge only shows cr2 files and i don't use cr2
    files from explorer. I only "develop" them and when they're fine, i convert
    to jpg.

    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
  17. JC Dill

    John Bean Guest

    Point taken. An interesting observation is that DNG offers
    more advantages to me - a user of iView MediaPro and
    Silkypix - that it does to you, an Adobe Bridge and ACR

    That nicely puts to bed the "DNG ties you to Adobe" myth.

    I think the real benefit of DNG is that it adds more user
    choice, and at no cost to the user. It helps people like me
    to manage my images the way I want now, while offering no
    hindrance to people like you who want to continue your
    existing workflow but may want to change at some point in
    the future. A genuine win-win situation.

    And thanks for keeping the discussion civilised :)
    John Bean, Oct 10, 2006
  18. no problem...
    i might try out this combination of yours one day...what i hate most in CS2
    is bloddy high price. OK, Elements is an option...
    What i like a lot is unsharp mask. If that (or similar) is present in any
    other software, i'm quite prepared to give it a try. I am always open to a
    new things.
    Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\), Oct 10, 2006
  19. Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 2006
  20. I think you missed the point - perhaps I didn't explain it well.
    Aperture, Rawshooter, and ACDSee support DNG to the same extent that
    they support other raw file formats. In other words, they have to be
    updated with details for new cameras, for example a Canon 400D or a
    Nikon D80, then they can process the CR2s / NEFs and the DNGs for those
    cameras. For those products, DNG is "merely" an equal citizen along
    with the other raw formats - it isn't worse.

    DNG is capable of more than that - it contains camera details within
    the files, so a raw converter can read them from there instead of
    needing an update. With such raw converters, DNG is demonstrably
    superior in this respect to other raw formats. When I say that some
    products have deficient support for DNG, I simply mean that they treat
    DNG like other raw file formats, and waste its superiority.

    Capture One has announced DNG support in version 4, and they have also
    announced a timeframe: Capture One 4 LE in the beginning of 2007 and
    Capture One 4 PRO at the end of quarter 2, 2007. I don't know what
    level of support it will have.

    Bibble is the odd one out. Given the requests in their forums, I don't
    know how long they will hold out.
    Barry Pearson, Oct 10, 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.