PNG Files (Page 2): OK. I'm done. I am completely convinced that you are wrong, as you are convinced that I am. This is however, not technical. It is a matter of interpretation from my...

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

Apaflo wrote:

Let's skip fueling fires and put some light on the subject instead. Which is to say that if you are not willing to learn, I'm not willing to discuss it further.

OK. I'm done. I am completely convinced that you are wrong, as you are convinced that I am.

This is however, not technical. It is a matter of interpretation from my perspective. I am always willing to learn but I am selective about my sources. I am not willing to learn from you on this specific topic, since I do not respect your credentials in this matter.

Let's leave it here, we can agree to disagree respectfully, since it really is quite an esoteric distinction. If there is an established, certified and formal definition of what is and is not an image file I have yet to find it.

If you have valid sources that you can cite that withstand academic rigor, then please cite them. If not it is still a matter of discussion.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Rongnongno wrote:

Let's just give a straight answer to the op, Shall we?

I say YES if editing in the 16 bit. No if edited in 8 bit.

Not even close in either case.

Consider that a single pixel in a 16-bit depth RGB formatted file has a total of 3 times 16 bits, or 48 bits to define that pixel. Compare that to the raw sensor data where the 14-bit depth data might use anything from a 4x4 matrix to a 16x16 matrix to define a single pixel to output to the RGB file.

16 * 16 * 14 is 3584 bits compare to that measly 48 bits available in a TIFF. That is 2^48 tonal variations compared to 2^3584. Or millions of times more information in the RAW data.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Linckinn wrote:

Thank you.

I think I was confusing PNG with DNG.

Maybe you would like to start over with a different title. Apparently nobody noticed that you meant DNG so they started to argue among themselves and ignore you.

The simple answer is that you are better off hanging on to the NEF file and looking for an editor that can deal with it directly. Whenever you convert from one method to another you are bound to lose something, in theory,

On the other hand what you lose may not be visible or significant.

NorthPacific

selmslie wrote:

Maybe you would like to start over with a different title. Apparently nobody noticed that you meant DNG so they started to argue among themselves and ignore you.

The simple answer is that you are better off hanging on to the NEF file and looking for an editor that can deal with it directly. Whenever you convert from one method to another you are bound to lose something, in theory,

On the other hand what you lose may not be visible or significant.

Your last sentence here IS this entire string summed with common sense elegance.

I would go a step further and apply that thought to JPEG FINE vs RAW though you may have implied it here.

The irony is that RAW is not truly RAW from camera maker to camera maker since SOME type of processing is done to an even theoretically RAW image.

Finally at the end of the day, the processed or manipulated RAW image has to be converted usually to JPEG to make it usable or practical. And in Ken Rockwell's holy grail of RAW vs JPEG, he warns that these camera makers alter their RAW formulas and one day people might discover some of their RAW images are no longer usable.

This entire string has become nearly incomprehensible ..real brain teaser stuff........so again thanks for your last sentence above to bring this back to an understandable, real world judgmental standard....i.e. how does it look?

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

TriX wrote:

PNG image files can have transparent backgrounds, so they're one option for adding signature/copywrite information to photos if you're not doing that via layers in PS or PSE.

Exactly, but he was (I think) referring to DNG's

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

NorthPacific wrote:

... This entire string has become nearly incomprehensible ..real brain teaser stuff........so again thanks for your last sentence above to bring this back to an understandable, real world judgmental standard....i.e. how does it look?

I never cease to be amazed by how often people here lose sight (there I go again) of the objective of photography as they drift off into dense clouds of theory.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thanks, everyone. I had no idea it was such an involved question, but for my purposes the answer is clear. Use software that is up to date for all RAW types for what cameras I use.

Thanks.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Does anyone in this forum actually know the correct answer? Not opinions but anyone who truly is qualified to give us the answer?

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thanks, everyone. I had no idea it was such an involved question, but for my purposes the answer is clear. Use software that is up to date for all RAW types for what cameras I use.

Thanks.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

papakatz45 wrote:

Does anyone in this forum actually know the correct answer? Not opinions but anyone who truly is qualified to give us the answer?

A few are but they really need to understand the question before bloviating on their own favorite topic.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

OnDSnap wrote:

Exactly, but he was (I think) referring to DNG's

Yep, I got that about 10 minutes after I posted... :)

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Peterff wrote:

It is not correct. Lossless generally refers to c... (show quote)

Also I had gotten the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that a PNG is more a modern graphics file format like a GIF or BMP, than a photographic image file like a DNG, TIFF, JPG, PSD, etc.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Linckinn wrote:

Suppose one converted RAW files from a manufacturer, say NEF's from Nikon, into PNG files, and then imported the PNG files into software for post processing. Can one then edit/process with the same results as if processing a RAW file? My understanding is "yes", since the PNG is lossless, but I would like to know if I that is not correct.

Thanks, as always.

Almost immediately here several people are misreading PNG for DNG and running off on nonsense arguments. Fairly entertaining BS as well.

:? :twisted: :shock: ;-) :-P :-D :(

jhkpilot

Let's discuss something more important: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

nikonwaddy

"In fact there are many things that raw sensor data can be used for...."

I am not qualified to add to this discussion but somewhere the above statement was made. I am curious, what else could the raw sensor data off my Nikon sensor be used for other than to make an image? I had no idea that this could be done....Thx