Adobe DNG

Twentyten

Twentyten

Suspended / Banned
Messages
448
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Adobe DNG, what's the point of it then?

Is it Adobe's attempt at World domination?
 
yes! It's Adobe's attempt to create a universal standard - regardless of camera type used to shoot the RAW.
 
Here's one example.
If you buy a new camera and process in RAW you will need the latest Adobe Camera Raw plug in.
For example the 5D MKII will not process a RAW file in CS3, you need CS4 (or elements 7 ???)
If you convert the RAW file to DNG you can then process it in ACR via CS3 or CS2 etc.
 
Plus the files can be up to 25% smaller. That's a big help with 21Mp cameras.

I also believe that Adobe have put the DNG standard forward to the ISO so that it may become as common as JPEG or TIFF
 
So if you buy a new camera which isn't supported by cs3, you can convert to DNG to work on it??....

That makes a lot of sense. Adobe have taken a loaded gun and thought, which foot will we shoot ourselves in?

Just think of all the upgrade profits they've lost out on.

But back to my original question,Is there any benefit I converting to DNG I shoot RAW NEFs and have lightroom and CS3, the reason I ask as I haven't used Lr yet and the manual give you 4 options as to how you import your images, and one of them is to automatically convert to DNG
 
Garnock said:
You mean apart from the benefits mentioned above.
i.e. smaller file size and the ability to process any camera's raw file in any PS (a universal standard)........................ not that I know of. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

;)
Yeah, I can see the benefits and Adobe are to be applauded , it would be great if it did become the standard by which all camera manufacturers produced files from they're cameras(although I won't hold my breath).

The reason I was asking about it was I couldn't see any benefit personally for me and I thought i'd ask tp to see if I was missing the point, which clearly I am.

If I were to convert to DNG could I then convert it back to NEF?
 
This has been covered a few times on here.

Other than the file size reduction, which is noticable over a hard disk full of images, there is the other advantage that meta data is written to the DNG file, rather than stored in a separate XMP sidecar file.
 
If you are unsure if you should use DNG then don't. It's not compulsory ( well it wasn't the last time I looked).

If you decide at a later date that it might be a good idea then you can happily convert your files. There is nothing magical about DNG apart from it being an open standard format.

I've been using DNG now for 2 years without any problems, but that shouldn't sway you.

If you are undecided, why not convert some files to DNG, and select the option NOT to delete the originals. ( Don't incorporate them in the DNG file as it defeats the object really). and see how it goes. That's what I did
 
Also mitigates future risk that proprietary camera raw file formats of cameras in use today are not supported by future software. Less likely that the Adobe DNG file format will not be supported.
 
Twentyten said:
That makes a lot of sense. Adobe have taken a loaded gun and thought, which foot will we shoot ourselves in?

Just think of all the upgrade profits they've lost out on.
Click to expand...

I suspect Adobe have a finger in the pie somewhere and the DNG format will be something licenced from them. So if all the other manufacurers go along with the DNG standard Adobe will still make something out of it.
 
Thanks for all the replies.:thumbs:

I think I'll just leave my files as NEF just now,I really don't think a smaller file size worries me as much as losing the original NEF file, as chappers said I've always got the option to convert them later if needed.
 
Also remember that your NEF files will bring along with them a sidecar file for changes in Lightroom, etc - using DNG means that data is embedded in the DNG, so if you move or copy the files to another computer no need to bring the sidecar files along as well...

Harbingers of doom will tell you about Adobe going out of business and you not being able to access your DNG files... Adobe aren't going anywhere, we all pay way too much money for their products!!

Only having one type of RAW file (DNG) would be a good thing, if only to get rid of camera manufacturers crap RAW software... :D
 
DekHog said:
Harbingers of doom will tell you about Adobe going out of business and you not being able to access your DNG files... Adobe aren't going anywhere, we all pay way too much money for their products!!
Click to expand...

Yea right, I would hazard a guess that 90% of the Photoshops out there are pirated
DekHog said:
Only having one type of RAW file (DNG) would be a good thing, if only to get rid of camera manufacturers crap RAW software... :D
Click to expand...

I don't now about Nikon, but Canons raw converter is far far better at converting raw files than anything Adobe has.
 
Yea right, I would hazard a guess that 90% of the Photoshops out there are pirated



Yup, for home users, but the vast majority of business users have legit copies... mega-bucks.
 
It might not be quite as safe as you think Dekhog, Adobe are having their share of financial difficulties just like everybody else (they laid off staff recently) and theres not a huge other support for DNG, if Adobe fell by the wayside I suspect it wouldn't be long before DNG was "dropped" by other companies
Plus DNG doesn't support all the features of some raw files (some lens corrections for example) theres also variations in the DNG format, and a new version on the horizon.
Personally I wouldn't switch from my native raw to DNG, nothing wrong with using both, but I wouldn't bin the raw files, back up both, just in case.
 
Well I would not bank on camera manafactures supporting there own file formats forever, as some have already dropped by the wayside. I belive even Canon stopped supporingt the D30 in DPP (or at least they did not used to) and that is only a eight year old raw format!

And as to Adobe going broke I doubt it (but never say never) and if it did I wonder what would happen to the Tiff format which Adobe already own?
 
Garnock said:
I don't think you can convert back.
DNG is not something I would use because
1) I don't have to.
2) It would take up too much extra space because I couldn't bring myself to delete the original RAW files.
Click to expand...

I think you can upload your files from your camera in to DNG so not need to delete them. And as smaller space needed less HD space used
 
Adobe have updated the DNG format.

DPReview
Adobe has updated its DNG digital negative specification to allow a series of image corrections to be embedded in the file. Version 1.3 of the non-proprietary RAW file format allows a series of 'corrections and enhancements', which Adobe is calling opcodes, to be defined in DNG files. These opcodes include the ability to specify corrections for lens aberrations such as geometric distortion and lateral chromatic aberration that should be made to the RAW data when it's processed.
Click to expand...

All well and good by the sound of it, however one chap has already had problems with converting to the new format, but having those files not being able to read by Elements 5. DPReview thread here.

So if you convert with their new DNG converter, and have an older version of one of their programs to edit it, you may find that your universal RAW format may not be as universal as you think. ;) :lol:

That chap may just be a one off. :shrug: It will be interesting to see if it is a widespread side effect of the new DNG file.
 
Garnock said:
Here's one example.
If you buy a new camera and process in RAW you will need the latest Adobe Camera Raw plug in.
For example the 5D MKII will not process a RAW file in CS3, you need CS4 (or elements 7 ???)
If you convert the RAW file to DNG you can then process it in ACR via CS3 or CS2 etc.
Click to expand...

You do not NEED CS at all, to process raw files, for your 5D MkII Canon GIVE you Digital Photography Professional. I sure every other manufacture GIVES you raw converting software.
 
redhed17 said:
Adobe have updated the DNG format.

DPReview



So if you convert with their new DNG converter, and have an older version of one of their programs to edit it, you may find that your universal RAW format may not be as universal as you think. ;) :lol:
Click to expand...
How do you expect a program from the past to be able to open a file type that did not exist when made? Time travel?
:bonk:
 
IMHO, anything that makes RAW files compatible with older versions of Photoshop (while not having to clutter your system up with extra programs from camera manufacturers) can only be a good thing. If you're using a Mac (and I'm assuming most of us are) then you expect things to work seamlessly - Adobe have a good record with creating workable standards - they did it with the PDF.
 
Chaz Photos said:
How do you expect a program from the past to be able to open a file type that did not exist when made? Time travel?
:bonk:
Click to expand...
No, not time travel, but with updates! If they are marketing DNG as a universal RAW standard for use with their software, then I expect them to make their older versions of their programs compatible with the new changes to the 'standard'. It is all right changing to make things better, but Adobe is in the habit of changing their software to 'force' users to update their software should they buy a new camera, and want to continue using Photoshop CS'X' or Elements 'X' and have not the current version, as they don't support older versions of their software. :shrug:

I think you may be able to save DNG files in the older format with their new DNG converter, but there may be a point where they don't offer that option

whiteflyer said:
I sure every other manufacture GIVES you raw converting software.
Click to expand...

I think every manufacturer will give a converter, but some only allow limited editing. Nikon are known to charge for Capture NX, which should be bundled with the camera, especially with the top of the range cameras. :annoyed:

SwissDot said:
If you're using a Mac (and I'm assuming most of us are)
Click to expand...

Oh I think that is a wrong assumption. I would say the Mac v PC users would be similar to the national average, but with a slight move towards Macs because of the perceived belief that they are for creative people (real or imagined) ;) But then I could also be making the wrong assumption. ;) :lol:
 
Sorry - my mistake. Don't want to start a Mac vs PC contest!

My main point was that standards=good, at least Adobe seem to be making a concerted effort in that direction. They've got the clout to introduce formats that can be adopted quickly because they can roll it out in the CS Suite across the main operating systems, rather than wait for manufacturers to collaborate and produce a global standard, or an Opensource project to come to the rescue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top