Ratta Loc: California

I am sure that all my DNG pics are raw because I only convert my raw files to DNG. I really don't care about what other people convert to DNG. I don't process their files. But I do know what mine are.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

My wife has to. Not me!!!

blackest Loc: Ireland

Yes Pentax saves as PEF or DNG the difference being more software supports DNG.

I don't really understand Ron's ire towards dng yes it can be used to hold data from jpegs any jpegs, in fact not just photographs. However impure a jpeg is, 8 bit lossy compression gets converted to essentially a tiff file (so there are pixels interpolated to a lower standard 8bit than most raw files 12 or 14 bit :which generally are converted to 16 bit.) By working with that image data, degraded as it might be, having it in dng should allow for greater freedom in tone mapping since it now can be adjusted by smaller increments (now working with 16bit values )and now capable of storing the adjustments within the dng file allowing for non destructive editing in the same way as with regular raw files.

Yes arguably a jpeg can rarely be as good as a raw file , except perhaps when you forget to remove the lens cap. However it isn't a negative to be able to manipulate that data in the same way as raw. Besides if you choose to convert a jpeg to a dng or even a tiff or any other format that is your choice. A dng file is not going to convert your raw file into an 8 bit jpeg so if you put good data in you will get good data out.

Maybe ron would want a doorman blocking entrance to the dng format, sorry jpeg you are not coming in without a tie :)

Honestly if you convert nef , cr2, pef, rw2 into a dng it is not getting degraded any more than converting to a tiff. If you want to pretend that a jpg is really a raw file by taking off the label you can but you should be aware that you are doing so. If you are unaware it will be because you are working with someone else's file and who would be doing that?

It would seem to me that using adobes free raw converter to convert rw2 to dng would be a positive move allowing you to move onto your usual post-processing software. Just because DNG can be abused, doesn't mean you must become a vandal. Even photoshop gives you the option to process a jpeg in ACR.

blackest Loc: Ireland

No she doesn't if you don't have post processing software that can handle rw2 natively then convert it to dng and proceed from there, it will not become an 8 bit jpeg in the process!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I am not sure what you are onto right now but it is my wife who has to deal with a dual headed hydra, not me. Meaning she will have to review her captures in JPG or use Bridge for raw. The later being a VERY slow process.

As to processing software? PS CC. Powerful enough for ya?

As my beef with DNG, it is not DNG per say, I do not give a rat tail about it. It is just that folks look at it as being 'pure raw' which it is not. You can try to educated folks on that for ages and still not make a dent so I just blast out.

DNG will never take because of its ambition are too big but also because manufacturers are not about to reveal their trade secret to anyone. So, DNG as a 'standard'??? (Do you hear the toilet flushing?)

Quite frankly, I do not support the standardization of format within brands or format. The reason is simple if all use the same specification for everything - that is what a standard is - not one camera will stand better than the other. We could just do a 'white omelette' and be done with it. 'Healthy' but pure crap. Sorry, I like my eggs fresh cooked sunny side up and runny. I also like my camera and the capture they make to be unique and in such a way I can cook them myself.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Right so you use adobe's photoshop to process nikon nef files which nikon is not about to reveal their trade secret to anyone, not even adobe who also make and specify the DNG format?

Do you not see the contradiction in that?

Ok you could use nikons software to convert to adobes tiff file format and then change adobes tiff into a dng, if you trust them to do that correctly.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

In case you are not aware the proprietary software and file format is not fully transferred when using ANY other software other than THEIR software. This has to do with stuff no one really knows about and is likely not important when it comes to the image quality (no paranoid theory here).

So, no, no contradiction even if you try to look for one. ACR and other need to adjust their software every time a new 'sub format comes out'.

Windows Codecs only extract the embedded JPG from the raw that is why they are so fast. Because codecs are not dealing with raw proper there is no need to get a new codec update every time.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

You in some kind of hurry? The JPG file maybe read quickly but the compression algorithm for each manufacturer is different. There us no consistency across the world in format, raw or JPG. i will take raw any day and and at least have some control with the input file that generates the proprietary JPG.

If you looking for universal harmony on format, I have a bridge. It's not about the user but the company making $$$money$$$. Each manufacturer wants you stay in their fold. My take- find another windmill to tilt at!

I'd rather spend the time for universal health care than a camera format.

Linary Loc: UK

The manual pp 174 suggests you can choose raw with no accompanying jpg

(Download)

shackcf

I am brand new to this forum so I might be jumping in at the wrong place in this thread. It sounds like you are relating the shortcomings of Canon and the RAW format they no longer provide Codecs for. I am a Nikon user but I wanted to play with some Canon pics, post processing wise. I was very suprised to NOT find a codec for their latest RAW format. However the application known as Lightzone does a fine job with them if you do not have any Adobe software.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Yes you can BUT you cannot see what is inside hence forces to use raw+JPG.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Canon codecs are provided by MS... At least I found them, did not install them but I think they work since they are recent. My beef i with panasonic/lumix.

shackcf

OK was not sure.

Linary Loc: UK

Your post got to me and I have spent hours searching for Panasonic codecs - many of which do not exist. However, I found several forums in which members were complaining that several Canon codecs are missing from the Microsoft codec pack installed into Win 10. There are also some Sony codecs missing along with some older raw producing camera models as well. According to Microsoft, there are no immediate plans to rectify the situation.

Apart from the the obvious (Lightroom and Bridge), there is one program which may be of interest to you - Irfanview. It is free, very fast and I have not in the past found a picture file it could not open. (Irfanview is a browser - not a catalogue) . I don't know if Irfanview converts the raw data into a viewing file (as does ACR) or if it merely extracts the jpeg from the raw file. Either way, it works several times faster that Bridge and can be configured to send images to Photoshop with a right click. Irfanview takes up 50 Mb of hard disk space and that includes all its plug-ins.

If you have any interest in this the website is at http://www.irfanview.com/

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I will look onto that. Thank you.