JD750 Loc: SoCal

You clearly have no reason to save the raw files, DNG clearly has advantages for you. I find that is very interesting. Adobe is making inroads in the graphic area where a standard for all their tools makes sense, I guess TIFF doesn't work because it doesn't preserve layers? Are you also converting your older .psd files to DNG?

But the photographic community is not as enthused.

Rongo made a good point about propriety raw and "one size fits all".

Nasim mentioned in his article that often times photography contests require submission of the raw file as proof that the photo has not been altered beyond what the contest rules allow. For obvious reasons DNG is not accepted for this proof. This was also cited as a problem for cameras that output DNG as the native format.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

TIFF doesn't work because the file sizes are monstrous. Back in the days of beginning email and such, many services such as AOL, GMAIL, and many private email servers restricted email attachments to no more than 10 MB. Some still do. Many TIFF files, then, could not be emailed.


yes.


I don't think there is anything wrong with one size fits all in today's world with today's technology and super smart computers and software because that "one size" also has many tools to alter it when one wants.

When I made a conscious decision in January 2012 to learn everything Photoshop could do, I knew that if I learned it, I could do away with my own personal needs for PaintShop Pro, Photo-Paint, Corel Draw, and Lightroom. I have done that.

I'm interviewing for a position with a pair of sister companies as Marketing Coordinator. They use Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator. The guy who is leaving showed me why he is using those three programs. I told him that he was using them properly but that any of those three programs can do everything that he was doing. He didn't believe me, so I sat down and showed him. He was impressed. However, If one's work is 90% photography, Photoshop is the place to do that 90% and the other 10%. If one's work is 90% page layout, InDesign is the place to do that 90% and the other 10%. If one's work is 90% renderings, Illustrator is the place to do that 90% and the other 10%. However, if one is skilled at all three programs, it's appropriate to use the best programs for the job at hand, and that might occasionally mean jumping from one program to another, and that's where DNG really shines.


I'm not understanding the "obvious reasons."

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

That could be a receive problem, not a transmission problem.

You seem to be very centered around your own perspective, and while many of the things you say are valid, they do not constitute fundamental truths, nor does it mean that DNG or Adobe products will endure in the long term.

If you are interviewing for a marketing coordinator position then I wish you luck and good fortune. Your perspective about a "lingua franca" for file format exchange between providers and clients is well placed. Just be aware that in the tech world, the "lingua franca" for things can change quite rapidly.

Not wishing to be disrespectful in any way, but a marketing coordinator is a relatively junior position, and many people on this forum have seen many formats, standards and companies show promise, appear to thrive, then fail and eventually die, along with the tech "standards" that were related to their respective technologies.

Many of the people on this forum have spent decades participating in that journey and have experienced both the success and the failures, and speak with significant knowledge. They have lived through the cycle many times.

DNG is a good format, but it may not succeed as an adopted and enduring standard, and having alternative approaches may be a better long term strategy. It is the content, not the format that matters.

Got anything worthwhile on 8" or 5 1/4" floppy discs? Can you get to it even if you have? What about CDs or DVDs? Apple and Microsoft are dropping support for those as part of the standard offering. Sure, things are available to stream from the cloud until the provider stops providing. We're still in the days when a publisher can decide not to publish. With a book, you still have the book, if you can see and read then you can access it. This is not the same in the connected cloud-based technology age.

Some of us wish to preserve our content, and DNG is only a partial solution to that. It plays a role as a transitional communication format for now, but that is all.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of the details, or join the argument, but I did want to add that a "standard" ain't a standard until its a Standard. And although it one day might be, DNG is definitely not a standard right now. I therefore leave my raw files in cr2 format for that and one other reason. I use Canon's DPP 4.2 almost as much as I use Lightroom 6 and DNG is not compatible with it.

Because DNG is not a standard I would feel compelled to hold on to all my original cr2 files even if I also decided to convert them to DNG for use with Adobe products. I've been in IT for 35 years and seen too many non-standard standards come and go, and too much technology that hits a dead end. Maybe some small 3rd party start up will develop photo software superior to Adobe's offerings, and maybe they won't support DNG. Then what? When it comes to technology and software the one thing you can count on is constant change and inevitable software and hardware incompatibility.

When DNG is ISO specified and is used as the native raw format for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc, only then will it be a universal standard. That's when I'll start feeling comfortable deleting my native raw files, but not yet.

I personally know a couple of people that wanted to try the new Canon DPP 4 program but realized they couldn't because they had deleted all their cr2 files after DNG conversion. Shortsighted? I'll leave that to others to decide. Since native raw files from Canon and Nikon work just fine in Adobe products, other than for professionals use where format is dictated, I really don't understand the need to use DNG

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Zero, one, many I get,... but two many, that leaves me a little puzzled! Why stop at two? If it's a binary thing then two doesn't enter into the equation does it? :D



I most certainly agree with you, Sir!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I changed the "two" to "too". Thanks for pointing out the error.

As for those who feel confident deleting their native raw files for what is still a proprietary Adobe format, its a personal choice which probably will never come back to haunt them. Probably. :roll:

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

:thumbup: Thanks for taking the math-based jibe in good spirit!

As for the rest, while DNG has potential, and is a loss-less format by specification, it does not mean that no information is lost in the conversion from the proprietary Canon, Nikon, or other vendor specific formats to the Adobe proposed standard format.

At least for me, disk space is relatively cheap compared with the value of content, and duplication is a very minor consideration.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Exactly, and since Adobe still owns the format, they can modify it at will, if necessary, to promote it's adoption as the industry's raw format standard. So to answer the OP's question. Its probably not a dead end, but because its also not a universal standard, it isn't the panacea many seem to think it is. As I've said, I'll wait!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Thank you for that heads up. I'm so thankful for your insight considering that you don't know anything about the two companies or why I want to go to work for them.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You are correct, and the companies may be much more junior to yourself and your abilities, the point here is that situations are complex and there are very few eternal verities...

I think it was you that questioned the reasons for questioning a one size fits all philosophy:

" I don't think there is anything wrong with one size fits all in today's world with today's technology and super smart computers and software because that "one size" also has many tools to alter it when one wants.


You may find that you are treading upon thin ice with that philosophy.

How much do you actually know about today's technology? How much do you know about super smart computers? How involved are you with modern software and tools?

What do you know about today's super smart computers? Are the terms Coral or Trinity familiar to you?

What do the terms hyperscale and exascale mean to you?

What are their implications in terms of software tools?

Any thoughts?

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

I had a problem because my software would not read new RAW formats like NEF. I HAD to convert to DNG because it was universally recognized. Now I am trying out Lightroom, the instruction book notes a capabality of converting all RAW files to DNG when first importing. It recommends it, especially if you have storage space problems. Supposesdly there is no down grading of information or IQ, but takes up significantly less storage space. I had to get an external hard drive because my computer, as they all will if you are a serious RAW photographer, got full of photographs. If you don't have that problem now, you will. I used to have have 3 different folders, one for the jpgs, one for nefs, and one for dngs. As my computer hard drive was full and I had to delete something, I noticed the nef folders were significantly bigger than the dng. Off to the recycle bin went the nefs.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

In this day and age this is not an issue. Computer storage is cheap. My C drive is 3 terabytes, and I've added a 3 terabyte D drive. My back up drives, all five of them, include three 3 terabyte drives and two 2 terabyte drives I doubt I'll ever get close to running out of space because by that time 6 terabyte or 10 terabyte will be affordable. A 3 terabyte hard drive can hold close to 75,000 raw files in native cr2 format. You can buy a 2 terabyte portable drive for $75 that will hold around 45,000+ images. With regard to your statement, "I had to get an external hard drive because my computer, as they all will if you are a serious RAW photographer". Serious RAW shooters strive to have computers powerful enough and with enough storage to meet their needs without have to resort to saving space.

And, finally just to be clear, the DNG format is NOT universally recognized. There is plenty of software that doesn't recognize it. It is not yet a standard file format which is what much of this discussion is about. Use it if you want to, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but I'll start using it when the camera manufacturers starting using DNG as their native raw format.

georgevedwards Loc: Essex, Maryland.

Cheap if you are rich. I have a 3 terrabyte drive too, set me back $125 ("cheap" one too, right? Inferior Western Digital crap said the tech guy at the store) and it is already 30% filled with new photographs, raw format, etc. It is an issue. The more storage space you can get the more you need seems to be the norm) I now do work with layers incessantly, just today I was working on a panorama image, I was already on version 5 which means I had done 5 previous versions, like 10 layers or more, and the computer gets to a point where there are too many layers, and it says cannot save image, over 2 gigabytes. Multiply this by a few hundred images and a terrabyte ain't so big anymore. Sort of like an old 250 mb zipdrive. It is still an issue. I need a Petabyte external drive, for under $50, then it will not be an issue. Yottabyte here we come!

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and yep.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Was that yep or yap!

You didn't actually answer any of the questions!