Is the Adobe DNG format a dead end?
Aug 15, 2015 15:24:42 #
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG format. I have avoided DNG as my fear is converting my RAWs to DNGs, will leave me locked into Adobe products. And why bother converting at all if I have to save the RAW inside the DNG? That takes even more space! And DNG's have not become the open standard Adobe had pushed for. So where is the advantage?
Nasium has an interesting article on Photography Life, where he covers this the pros and cons of DNGs. (http://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng#more-116618)
I thought this subject would also make an interesting discussion topic. I would like to hear other UHHers thoughts on this matter.
Nasium has an interesting article on Photography Life, where he covers this the pros and cons of DNGs. (http://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng#more-116618)
I thought this subject would also make an interesting discussion topic. I would like to hear other UHHers thoughts on this matter.
Aug 15, 2015 17:17:01 #
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
Advantage? None.
One of the reasons is that DNG is not a raw file per say but a processed image. TIFF is the same thing (processed) but an accepted standard.
Use TIFF 16 instead.
Aug 15, 2015 17:39:18 #
Tony Northrup recommends DNG as a way of not locking into Nikon or Canon or Sony or anybody else's changing standards and as a way to save a bit of disk space compared to the manufacturer's native files. Unfortunately, every time I get the latest model camera, it takes Adobe a while before they get around to adding the newest RAW format tweaks into Camera Raw and their other products. I shoot mostly Nikon and am sticking with NEF for now, I'll suffer a little less hard drive space for not having the extra step and time of a file conversion in my workflow. My 2 cents...
Aug 15, 2015 18:17:35 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Advantage? None.
One of the reasons is that DNG is not a raw file per say but a processed image. TIFF is the same thing (processed) but an accepted standard.
Use TIFF 16 instead.
One of the reasons is that DNG is not a raw file per say but a processed image. TIFF is the same thing (processed) but an accepted standard.
Use TIFF 16 instead.
Thanks I have been doing exactly that.
Aug 15, 2015 18:23:03 #
Mr PC wrote:
Tony Northrup recommends DNG as a way of not locki... (show quote)
"Tony Northrup recommends DNG as a way of not locking into Nikon or Canon or Sony or anybody else's changing standards "
Hmm..... Changing standards? What is that exactly? So the solution is to lock into Adobes standard instead? I agree with your 2 cents.
Aug 15, 2015 19:07:26 #
jackpi
Loc: Southwest Ohio
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
One advantage of a standard format like DNG is that you can easily move photos between applications without converting it to other file types. For example, I can send a DNG photo from Lightroom to DxO Optics Pro and, after processing, bring it back to Lightroom as a DNG file without loosing any of the changes I have made in either Lightroom or DxO Optics Pro.
Aug 15, 2015 20:39:34 #
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
DNG is just another file type, proprietary but not well enough adopted to be a defacto standard.
It has uses, at least as a transitional format. I have an old Canon P&S (A710IS) that is not a bad camera, but only produces JPEG. With the CHDK run time SW I can get raw files, but only in DNG format. Better than JPEG, and good enough for me.
DNG is a decent format, but unless enough people use it as a standard it will be just another option...
Aug 15, 2015 21:26:56 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Rongnongno wrote:
Advantage? None.
One of the reasons is that DNG is not a raw file per say but a processed image. TIFF is the same thing (processed) but an accepted standard.
Use TIFF 16 instead.
One of the reasons is that DNG is not a raw file per say but a processed image. TIFF is the same thing (processed) but an accepted standard.
Use TIFF 16 instead.
DNG and Tiff are not the same thing at all. DNGs contains all the raw file shooting info and are the practical equivalent of a Raw file converted to Adobe's proprietary format. Tiffs do not contain all the original shooting information of a Raw file.
Aug 16, 2015 06:04:05 #
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
Adobe DNG is the native Raw format for current Pentax and Leica cameras. And it is a alternative for others as well via conversion.
Aug 16, 2015 06:18:24 #
DNG is not a "proprietary" Adobe format. Adobe has made it available to anyone and everyone. Personally, I find it much better than my Canon camera's RAW files in terms of file size and ease of portability into the Adobe products that I use (Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator) and the Corel products that I use (VideoStudio, Draw, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint), as well as Word and Excel.
Aug 16, 2015 06:24:58 #
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
On the concept of compatibility forever and Raw formats, nothing stays the same with computers for long. I'm sure there are some really nice photographs somewhere on 5 1/2" floppy disks as JPGs, but how would you read them today. Even diskettes are obsolete. Most Macs come with no optical drive now. We might eternally have to re-save our "keepers" from time to time in new formats.
Aug 16, 2015 06:31:35 #
russelray wrote:
DNG is not a "proprietary" Adobe format. Adobe has made it available to anyone and everyone. Personally, I find it much better than my Canon camera's RAW files in terms of file size and ease of portability into the Adobe products that I use (Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator) and the Corel products that I use (VideoStudio, Draw, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint), as well as Word and Excel.
Exactly. I sometime even convert my "less serious" images from my old Kodak Bridge PnS to DNGs, and also from my little Samsung PnS. I leave my SmartPhone JPGs alone as they lack the quality to seriously bother with. But I can still do a lot with a jpg using Photoshop. My three Pentax DSLRs produce native DNG Raw files.
Aug 16, 2015 08:01:38 #
When I began with Lightroom many years ago, the instructor recommended converting to DNG on import. I've done this as a SOP since then.
Maybe no real advantages, but I don't see any disadvantage.
Maybe no real advantages, but I don't see any disadvantage.
Aug 16, 2015 09:13:08 #
peterg
Loc: Santa Rosa, CA
Julieanne Kost, Adobe guru, has a few discussions on this. Example: http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2014/06/when-do-i-convert-raw-files-to-dng.html .
Personally, I convert to DNG when I import into Lightroom. The backups that go to an external hard drive are not converted; so the original RAW formats are still available.
Personally, I convert to DNG when I import into Lightroom. The backups that go to an external hard drive are not converted; so the original RAW formats are still available.
Aug 16, 2015 10:33:40 #
JD750 wrote:
There are many here who promote the Adobe DNG form... (show quote)
It does have the advantage of not needing a .xmp file to store changes in. I can look at my files in Irfanview, my go-to image viewer, and it reads the files fine. I have no idea if it would read a Canon .CR2 file *and* understand to read the .xmp file too...
DNG may not have become the 'standard', but many people out there are using it. If Adobe were to change it, I am sure that they would produce some kind of conversion tool
Canon cameras produce a .CR2 file. Was there ever a CR1 format? Or I guess it would probably have just been .CR. It seems odd to come up with a name off the bat which ends in '2'...
I keep all my original .CR2 files, but all my processing is done in LR on converted DNGs. I think of the CR2 files as my 'negatives', which are filed away for safety.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.