Mountainlife

I was told that Raw images taken with D 7000 will not open in Photoshop-CS5 and I need to download appropriate version of Adobe Camera Raw for that. Alternatively I can convert Raw files to DNG which will open in PS. I feel, saving Raw images as they are in drives and whenever, whichever file needs to be processed, converting the same to DNG and processing should be the way to go rather than converting all Raw files to DNG after each photo trip & saving them in drives as DNG files. Is this the right way ? or is there a better way?

Thanks in advance friends !

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

DNG (digital negative) is a raw file. It just happens to be Adobe's raw file, like NEF is Nikon's raw file and CR2 is Canon's raw file.

The benefit to DNG, when using Adobe products, such as Lightroom, is that all edits are saved to this one file. Other raw formats dictate that all edits be saved to an XMP file, or sidecar file, which of course, means that you would then have 2 files to keep up with for each image. But, there are other advantages, as well to using the DNG format.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Being told, and trying yourself are 2 different things. I have CS-5, and have no issues with shooting RAW. Have you tried it?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

DNG is the wanna be raw format standard. Trouble is, it is a static format that cannot adapt to the various camera data capture sensors.

When exporting your raw to DNG make sure you convert in 16 bit mode otherwise you lose the main advantage of raw: The sheer number of possible colors.

You might want to consider to export to TIFF 16 even if it takes considerably more space and is rewritable (DNG are not).

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Right, I did not notice that part until you picked up on it.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I was wondering why your first post had mine as the quote. :-) I'm not the OP

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Thanks, I did not even notice that one. I guess I am off my game today...

Corrected it.

Mountainlife

Yes, Without the ACR I converted to DNG which was a couple of MBs lesser than original Raw & I could process that. Keeping as Raw or as DNG may be a matter of choice. My doubt was whether to keep Raw as thay are or to convert to DNG & save them.

Mountainlife

Thank you R

UtahBob Loc: Southern NJ

Data capture sensors? Such as focus point on the image? Items that don't appear in the exif? Is that what you mean?

Reasons to keep/archive the raw file perhaps when using DNG.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

raw is data, nothing else. It is not an image. It is 'raw' data captured by the camera sensor.

EXIF have nothing to do with it. Since I am not use DNG, I am not so sure that the DNG format loses the EXIF information.

UtahBob Loc: Southern NJ

It is more than just sensor data, it is a filename and the exif and anything else sitting in the proprietary raw file. At least it must be otherwise from where does the exif come from if I just shoot raw and not jpg+raw?


Ok, if you don't use DNG then maybe asking you to clarify your point on "camera data capture sensors" was ill advised on my point. I thought you were headed in a rather interesting and useful direction.

So

Let's try this again,

You said


So when you say various camera data capture sensors you are referring to the actual sensor in the camera of various camera manufacturers ( "various camera" )?

I took your comment to refer to the fact that the DNG format does not capture specific details available from a particular camera that is embedded in the raw file such as a focus point. "Camera data capture sensors" - to me I interpreted as everything else the camera captures other than the image: focus point, lens, etc.

If you use nikon's view2nx or equivalent, it will show you the focus point. I don't believe that would be available with a program pulling data from a DNG but I don't know for sure. So my point was that the data stored in the exif by the camera, saved in the raw file and then saved in the DNG is available to any program that can use the DNG format ... but data that is camera/mfg specific such as focus point, isn't saved in the DNG and is thus unavailable. Hence, the raw file might be useful to keep for future use.  An interesting point for those who use DNG but trash the raw file after conversion. And then there is the age old wisdom of future program enhancements being able to utilize the raw file is some fantastic manner that we can't even dream of right now.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

DNG is a 'fit all' format that modifies the information given by a raw file. It does not retain what it 'finds odd' as you pointed out.

It is a processed file for starter, not a 'raw'. Each sensor regardless of brand and camera creates a raw capture*.

The sensor technology and data capture varies from model to model never-mind brand. This is why companies that make imaging software scramble to create an update for the new camera's raw file format. Since you use Nikon you use NEF. How many versions of this file format are around?

DNG is incapable of dealing with the changes made and as such 'static'. Software that translate raw to DNG act as a bridge, that would be all if it was not for the color depth option** and the introduction of color space that is not present in a raw file...

---
* Even a JPG only camera starts with a raw file, the manufacturer just selects not to offer it as a choice otherwise lots of folks would be really upset at their err... size. No more extravagant size claim, no more digital zoom trickery...
** Always select 16 bits. It is 2 bit higher then the generic raw 14 and will leave gaps in the colors. Gaps are filed as soon as one starts to process such a file (same goes when changing the color depth up on the fly in any software. These gaps can be seen in the histogram (vertical black lines - lack of data - and or spikes - too much data)

---
I am not sure if I answered you as you wanted...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I am not 100% sure but I think what you were told is wrong.
I think CS5 will open D7000 NEFs.
Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

UtahBob Loc: Southern NJ

---


Not so much as I wanted but more along the lines of answering with understanding what I was asking. I think we are on the same page now. :)