NEW Question, DNG or RAW?

[sk66]

I've been recording and saving in RAW, but I have thought about importing/saving as DNG.
There are definite advantages:
No "sidecar" to loose.
Smaller file size (only 70% of NEF)
Open source/Widely supported

It is already a "native" file type for some (Casio, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, and others) which would indicate a growing support.

My "concern" is the propriety of NEF's (for me), and backwards compatibility... New proprietary formats seem to come out with every new model (NEF from a D300 is NOT the same as a NEF from a D60)....I fear at some point backwards compatibility will be lost for certain versions.....I think DNG's have a better "forward outlook" as well as the other benefits already mentioned...

Anyone else have opinions?

(btw, I did a couple searches but got no results)

[Bluenoser]

Well, I use LR2 and import to DNG. You don't, however, lose the RAW (in my case CR2) originals. They are still there in my backup folder. So basically I have both.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by sk66

It is already a "native" file type for some (Casio, Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung, and others) which would indicate a growing support.

Actually, the manufacturers seem to be pulling back slightly from native DNG. Recent Hasselblad models, for instance, do not produce DNG.

The manufacturers who are supporting native DNG tend to be fringe manufacturers, for whom the process of writing custom Raw file converters is deemed not worth the effort.

NEF from a D300 is NOT the same as a NEF from a D60

Yes it is. The only difference is that the data is from a D300 sensor instead of a D60 sensor. The software needs to know what the "color space" for a D300 sensor is in order to process a D300 NEF.

With DNG, the DNG converter program adds Adobe's version of the color space information into the DNG file. Software could use that to figure out how to make sense of the D300 sensor data, if it doesn't already know.

In practice, some software packages refuse to bother. If they don't have the sensor's color space built into the software, they refuse to process the DNG. Apple Aperture is one such program.

Part of the issue is that each Raw software program has its own way of analyzing the sensor data into color, and to use Adobe's numbers from the DNG file would require having a second way of analysis. Another part of the issue is a general lack of respect for Adobe's color rendition techniques and its sensor color space data.

The biggest problem with DNG is that you limit your choice of Raw converters. These days, it's mainly the manufacturers Raw converters that you won't be able to use. Capture NX, for you Nikon folks. Another notable holdout is Bibble. Capture One currently provides limited support for DNG.

Anyone else have opinions?

Whether these are big problems to you or not, that's for you to decide.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by sk66

(btw, I did a couple searches but got no results)

That will be because you can't search for three letter words.

We just did this conversation over on the PP section last week.

DNG a.k.a. Digital Negative

[Farkled]

There is no particular advantage to moving to DNG and some possible negatives. The "sidecar" files need not be created; you can choose to store that information in the database (catalog.) I thnk Canon and Nikon are as likely to be around in the future as is Adobe. Converting to DNG means that you cannot use the convertor supplied by the manufacturer. Some 3rd party convertors also will not accept DNG as input (DxO, Bibble, ???) The DNG file of today will not be the DNG file of a few years from now.

I see no point in converting until forced to. Leaving a file in its native RAW form incurs no penalties (of which I am aware.) Converting to DNG has penalties. If the penalties are unimportant to you, then go for it

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

Actually, the manufacturers seem to be pulling back slightly from native DNG. Recent Hasselblad models, for instance, do not produce DNG.

The manufacturers who are supporting native DNG tend to be fringe manufacturers, for whom the process of writing custom Raw file converters is deemed not worth the effort.

Yes it is. The only difference is that the data is from a D300 sensor instead of a D60 sensor. The software needs to know what the "color space" for a D300 sensor is in order to process a D300 NEF.

With DNG, the DNG converter program adds Adobe's version of the color space information into the DNG file. Software could use that to figure out how to make sense of the D300 sensor data, if it doesn't already know.

In practice, some software packages refuse to bother. If they don't have the sensor's color space built into the software, they refuse to process the DNG. Apple Aperture is one such program.

Part of the issue is that each Raw software program has its own way of analyzing the sensor data into color, and to use Adobe's numbers from the DNG file would require having a second way of analysis. Another part of the issue is a general lack of respect for Adobe's color rendition techniques and its sensor color space data.

The biggest problem with DNG is that you limit your choice of Raw converters. These days, it's mainly the manufacturers Raw converters that you won't be able to use. Capture NX, for you Nikon folks. Another notable holdout is Bibble. Capture One currently provides limited support for DNG.



Whether these are big problems to you or not, that's for you to decide.

If a D60 is the same as a D300, why did lightroom need an update in order to accept the D60 and not just import it without a camera profile ?

I agree with Adobe's color rendition sucking (default) but that's not much of a concern when working from raw formats...

I thought most major programs will accept DNG (including aperture), maybe I'm wrong...I do realize capture one will not accept a DNG, but that's kind of besides the point since the file is starting out as a NEF....

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Farkled

There is no particular advantage to moving to DNG and some possible negatives. The "sidecar" files need not be created; you can choose to store that information in the database (catalog.) I thnk Canon and Nikon are as likely to be around in the future as is Adobe. Converting to DNG means that you cannot use the convertor supplied by the manufacturer. Some 3rd party convertors also will not accept DNG as input (DxO, Bibble, ???) The DNG file of today will not be the DNG file of a few years from now.

I see no point in converting until forced to. Leaving a file in its native RAW form incurs no penalties (of which I am aware.) Converting to DNG has penalties. If the penalties are unimportant to you, then go for it

The "sidecar" as such is still created, it's just it's location changes..A DNG saves change information as part of the original file...it can't be lost/corrupted separately.

You may be right that DNG will change, just as RAW has....but there are some penalties as compared to a DNG....and some benefits I guess...
(nikon will catch hell if they ever "stranded" a format without some solution)

Hmmm, I guess I'll have to do some more research on the topic....

[sk66]

Originally Posted by fletch

That will be because you can't search for three letter words.

We just did this conversation over on the PP section last week.

DNG a.k.a. Digital Negative

It used to give a warning if the search didn't meet minimum criteria...

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by sk66

If a D60 is the same as a D300, why did lightroom need an update in order to accept the D60

Because it didn't have any information on how the sensor in the D60 behaves. You needed to get an update that had information on the D60 sensor.

[sybren]

Originally Posted by Doug Pardee

Another notable holdout is Bibble.

Bibble supports DNG, but only native ones, not converted ones.