lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Yes, and is used as a native Raw format by Pentax and Leica, but I realize for many nothing else in the universe exists but Cankon or Ninon.

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

Even some of us Canon users recognize the virtues of Pentax etc. Most Canon P&S models only support JPEG, but the CHDK utility also provides raw files using DNG format demonstrating the value of open formats.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Not to mention Fuji and Hasselblad. It's not often you see flexibility being touted as a negative. Flexibility can be misused, but so can lots of useful things.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Good, thanks. ;-) :lol: :thumbup:

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

OK, that is four at least using Adobe DNG. What of Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, and Samsung?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

And others. That's where you enter into the murky world of proprietary formats. That's where each proprietary format requires format-specific software to open the file. Even within a single company there can be more than one raw format.

And the advantages? None that I can think of. Raw data is raw data, and none of these proprietary formats are doing anything any better than DNG. Some are more compact than others, but that's an area where DNG has a distinct advantage.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

That is what I figure too. But I've seen, especially the usual two, Canon and Nikon users claim otherwise about "their" proprietary Raw format and its magical powers.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Any differences are down to how the colours are rendered. Adobe (originators of DNG) seem to prefer a neutral rendering, which I would say is exactly right (it's probably why I hardly use the Nik or Topaz plug-ins that I have at my disposal - I don't like what they do to the colouring).

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

Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, this isn't really about proprietary formats, it is about open and closed formats. Also, there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of formats like DNG and standards such as JPEG or TIFF that have differing effects upon different people and organizations. Before I continue, I have nothing against the use of DNG, it is just another format and it does have value, but in the interests of accuracy, please consider the following.


1) At this time DNG is a proprietary format owned by Adobe. Adobe has proposed DNG as a formal standard to ISO, but it has not yet been accepted as such. It is an open and published format which is royalty-free and Adobe states that it is unencumbered by any known IP or license restrictions. It is not open source.

2) Adobe actively encourages its adoption, and the use of a vendor independent raw format that may become a formal standard has much value to end-users and some advantages as well as some disadvantages for vendors.

3) The advantages are fairly clear, including portability of raw data and the opportunity for camera and software vendors to adopt an open, royalty free specification without the cost of developing and maintaining their own format or reverse engineering closed proprietary formats from other vendors including Canon and Nikon.

4) The disadvantages for vendors can be manyfold. Adobe could change the specification or the licensing terms at any time if it wished to, although there is no indication that they do wish to or would benefit from such action. It does however remain a potential business risk.

5) It takes a long time for formal standards to be adopted, and when that happens it restricts the ability to change those standards without repeating the same lengthy and expensive process. An example is JPEG. The widely adopted JPEG has been superseded by newer versions of the standard that offer advantages, however they have not yet been widely adopted.

6) For vendors such as Canon, Nikon and others the advantage of proprietary raw formats gives them the freedom to change anything they wish to, potentially accelerating product development and freeing them from compliance with specifications that are not under their control. It is purely a business trade off. Adobe would benefit from its own technology being adopted as a standard, Canon and Nikon most likely would not gain much advantage and thus are unlikely to justify the cost of supporting DNG at least until it becomes a formal standard.

7) Adobe and others have reverse engineered the ability to use Canon and Nikon raw formats and as such the implementations may vary as may any default parameters applied upon import, whether 'neutral' or modified. Nikon, Canon and maybe others offer free software to process their raw formats. In the case of Canon (DPP) the raw data is transferred as are the in camera settings by default, so at first import the JPEG and raw (.CR2) files appear identical. However, in the case of Canon raw (.CR2) neutral and many other options can be applied and also customized. I see no downside to that from my own perspective.

In conclusion, it is quite a murky world where clarity is sometimes difficult to achieve. I suggest that there are advantages and disadvantages to either approach, and that depends upon the perspective of the individual or organization that is making a choice.

What this should not be is some kind of religious or moral judgement where some claim that their approach is superior except from their own perspective. We should also remember that things change over time, and with technology that can happen slowly or extremely fast. Predicting the future is a risky business.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You forget the main draw back.

DNG can encapsulate anything and because of that it is not a 'raw' anything but just a container. As such it is unreliable and while the 'creator' knows what it is dealing with, the user can be in for a nasty surprise.

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

That may or may not be true, but that wasn't the point of my post.

To use or not to use - that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous formats,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And, by opposing, end them.
Which puzzles the brain, and doth confound the sense,
Which makes us rather bear those evils we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.

The choice is up to each of us, but hopefully we can all make those choices on the basis of factual information!

With apologies to Bill Spokeshave and that now defunct publishing house 'Ye Olde Wattle and Daub Printshoppe"

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The point is that you show uncertainty over time.

I show uncertainty over content. DNG created using ACR import. All files that ACR import can be made 'raw like' w/o being anything BUT raw.

JPG

(Download)

JPG presented as DNG (raw wanna be standard as per Adobe)
Attached file:
(Download)

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

I think I understand what you are saying, although I'm not sure that your example is appropriate. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is possible to take a JPEG and convert it to DNG format. If so, then the result can only contain the information derived from that original JPEG which does not make it a raw file. If that is your statement, I totally agree.

On the other hand true raw files can be converted to DNG and retain at least a significant part of the information and become more portable. If DNG ever becomes a formal standard it may have even greater value.

Personally I don't see any value in DNG for my normal use, with one exception. My old Canon P&S only supports JPEG, but with CHDK ( Canon Hackers Development Kit ) installed on the P&S it can be set to export raw files which happen to be in DNG format, which offers more flexibility than the standard JPEG.

DNG does seem to be a valid raw format, but it can't magically add anything to a file that began life as a JPEG.

If you meant something else, then I didn't understand it properly.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Why do you think I posted two different files of the same image?

The first one is a JPG the second a DNG made from the JPG.

THAT is the proof DNG is a container, nothing else.

That alone invalidates the 'raw' compliance to anything. DNG is just a 'wrapping' not a real raw format. A pretty paper for whatever you feel like.

Note that is a way to cheat at the moment as since many folks, including photographers, think that DNG is raw only, one can give/sell garbage as 'raw' knowing perfectly well that the content is anything but a raw original.

You can do that with ANY format ACR opens. DNG is junk as a 'standard' raw replacement.

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

OK, I think that I know understand what you are saying. It's just that all you have proven is that what begins as a JPEG essentially remains equivalent to a JPEG.

You haven't addressed the other aspects of using DNG as a translation of some original type of raw file, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that DNG can be more than a crappy container for JPEG files. In short, so far I think you have proven yourself to be wrong and are just pushing your own opinion.

Apparently other people hold other opinions.