Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you DNG ???  (Read 52569 times)
erikhillard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« on: April 19, 2006, 08:37:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you DNG Huh

I haven't been delivering DNG files to my photographer clients.  
Just RAW files, Processed TIFFs and Low Rez JPEGs.

Curious how many people out there are incorporating DNG into their workflows.
At this point I'm not really interested in adding another huge block of time to my workflow.
But it would be a good education to have someone try and convince me.
Logged


Erik Hillard

Running Pixels
http://www.runningpixels.net/
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2006, 08:53:44 PM »
ReplyReply

For my own stuff, everything gets turned to DNG and I toss the originals. It doesn't take up much more time really as I incorporate it into the import process.

If a client gives me proprietary raw files to work with, then I leave them as so unless I'm asked to convert them.

If I was in a situation where I was delivering raw files I captured to a client then they'd be getting dngs and they'd like it since I don't work with anything else. But in reality, I don't give raw files I captured to a client since post production is part of the creative process. Besides, allot of people have a hard enough time dealing with color spaces let alone converting raw files.

What kind of workflow are you talking about?
Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2006, 09:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For my own stuff, everything gets turned to DNG and I toss the originals. ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did that with some of my Canon CR2 files. Then, I decided that DPP 2.0 does the best RAW conversion. Oops.

Ken
Logged
TimothyFarrar
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2006, 09:47:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I convert everything to DNG, it is nice to have all the meta data inside the file.

You can include your original RAW file in the DNG if you have concerns of possibly switching to a raw converter that does not process DNG.
Logged

Timothy Farrar
Farrar Focus Digital Darkroom
www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd
erikhillard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2006, 11:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

My workflow varies per job.  But mainly I work as a digital tech for photographers.  Sometimes I am using Capture One with Canon or Phase but I also use the Leaf backs alot with LeafCapture.  So I'm not always processing with the same software.

They generally want Hi Rez Tiff files delivered to their advertising/editorial clients and Low Rez JPEGs for editting purposes.  I generally give them the RAW files as well for a level of backup.  Of course I also always try to get my clients have more than two copies of every job.

I've debated delivering DNGs, Hi Rez TIFFs and Low Rez JPEGs.  But I've thought the extra step of DNG would be another thing I do that I am not paid for.  I do see a bit of the long term advantage of DNG, but not sure if I should implement it into my company work.  I haven't really heard of other digital techs doing DNG.
Logged


Erik Hillard

Running Pixels
http://www.runningpixels.net/
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2006, 11:46:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
Logged
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2006, 12:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

You can download the DNG converter from the Adobe website, and convert RAW files in batch very quickly.  Being a belt-and-braces kind of person, I keep the RAW file AND a DNG file, stored on separate archived hard disks (that's in addition to the original and it's PSD/TIFF/JPEG derivations on a RAID 5 array!).

The time it takes for the copying is minimal, and if you perform the copy after you've done all your metadata keywording / cataloguing in the RAW files, then that same metadata is reproduced in the DNG.  As for the extra storage it consumes - from my 1Ds2 it's taking up about 13.2Gb per 1,000 images, which means I can get about 15,000 DNG files on a 200Gb HDD - slightly fewer RAW files as they're a little bigger.

Disk is so cheap, I feel it's worth the minimal overhead in money and time to dedicate a disk to an archived DNG copy, as who knows what converters will be standard in a couple of years' time? If DNG doesn't become universal, then what have you lost?
Peter
Logged
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2006, 12:26:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Use the Adobe DNG Converter.

[a href=\"http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html]Adobe DNG Converter[/url]

The downloads are available in the upper left of the page.  Pretty much drag and drop.
Logged

David White
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2006, 12:31:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a way to convert a file to DNG while avoiding ACR? I would use DNG if not for Adobe's conversion quality. For me Nikon Capture (or Bibble) is so much better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Almost every third-party raw converter out there supports DNG with the exception of C1 (but they support it in spirit! </sarcasm>) and DXO (it exports in DNG but doesn't read DNG raw files).

Pre-2.4 ACR had issues but the most recent version of ACR it top-notch. You might want to give it another whirl. It's always useful to have another tool in the arsenal (esp. with Lightroom coming).

erikhillard,
The term "digital technitian" is a bit non-descriptive but I don't see anything too different on your site from what I myself do (aside from equipment rental). Anyway, as I said before, if your clients give you raw images to work on, then I wouldn't change things to DNG as they may take issue with that. Particularly if they are using non-DNG software.

If you are taking the images, then it's up to you. Sure, you won't get paid for the extra time you spend in converting them but you can market DNGs benefits and add value to your product. However, you'll be giving up C1 software until they awaken and catch up with the rest of the market.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2006, 10:18:09 AM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2006, 09:17:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Not yet!

I still use canon software for a whole bunch of EXIF data that is propietry to the canon RAW files/software and cannot be seen in ACR, for that reason alone I'm sticking to native formats.

Other than that DNG has not taken off the way it was expected to, it is still a baby on the scene and let's be honest, I'm not going to be in trouble looking at the market 3-5 years hence and then making my decision to change my files to DNG for the simple reason that I will still be able to view my native files in many programs still and only then making a decision based on how DNG really integrated. DNG is only - what - one year old? I don't feel guilty about wariness to change two years and tens of thousands of files over so soon.
Logged

kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2006, 11:40:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...I still use canon software for a whole bunch of EXIF data that is propietry to the canon RAW files/software and cannot be seen in ACR, for that reason alone I'm sticking to native formats....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I mentioned above, there's another reason, at least for Canon shooters,  not to discard RAW files. I converted some of my CR2 files to DNG, and then learned that DPP 2.0 does better conversion, particularly compared to ACR. It is possible to embed the CR2 files in DNG files, but at the cost of increased file size. I really prefer the interface of ACR, but image quality comes first.

Ken
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2006, 04:56:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I see the DNG's archival value. I'll consider it.

As far as converters go the only two I like (Nikon Capture and Bibble) don't support DNG.

I wish ACR produced results I liked - it would simplify my workflow. I try it every time they release an update.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9192



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2006, 07:25:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Note I don't shoot for anyone but myself (my life as a Pro photographer ended last century <g>).

I do use .DNG. The big reasons are:

I don't want to rely on some proprietary format (in my case Canon).

I don't want to mess with sidecar files. The beauty of .DNG is I can embed all kinds of useful EXIF data directly into the file.

I'm hoping to see .DNG evolve further. For example, how cool would it be to embed multiple rendering instructions (tiny files) within a .DNG so my RAW converter could produce a B&W, a sepia, a full color image and apply differing file sizes and color spaces? You could send someone a .DNG file and they could "see" in the same converter all the edits I specify and build their own versions of the edits. Only when I tell the converter "use this instruction set to render the file" would I end up with a full rez (or smaller) rendered image. Makes working with full resolution pixel based rendered files seem positively 20th century.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2006, 08:43:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... DPP 2.0 does better conversion, particularly compared to ACR.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken, I'm curious - I find DPP to be an awful interface with non-intuitive controls and apparently less capability to make fine adjustments to the RAW conversion.  In what particular ways do you find it performs better conversions than ACR?
Peter
Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2006, 10:37:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ken, I'm curious - I find DPP to be an awful interface with non-intuitive controls and apparently less capability to make fine adjustments to the RAW conversion.  In what particular ways do you find it performs better conversions than ACR?
Peter
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,

I was very skeptical about DPP. In fact for the first year I had my 1D2, I never even installed the Canon software. Armed with Bruce Fraser's fine Real World Camera Raw book, I felt confident that I was using ACR to best advantage. Then, when DPP 2.0 came out, some very experienced folks on the RG forums started saying that they were getting better conversions with DPP 2.0. Some of them had used every converter available, up to C1. I downloaded the latest version and gave it a try. I agree about the interface. I don't like it at all. I miss the highlight recovery capability of ACR, and the precise adjustments posible with all its controls. I'm sure there are folks who understand why DPP has a RAW tab with no curve tool, and an RGB tab that does have one; but I don't. I agree about coarser adustments, particularly the tone curve slider on the RAW tab. In spite of all my complaints, it seem that if I set the tone curve slider so the image looks best, maybe tweak the curve on the RGB tab, and then set the sharpness slider on the RAW tab to about 3, the resulting image has smoother gradients near the limits of dynamic range, and sharpness that is difficult to match in PS even with a lot of fiddling with the USM or Smart Sharpen control. Every once in a while, I give ACR another try, hoping that it will be as good, because I really prefer using it, but I end up deciding that the results are better with DPP, now 2.03. I'm not sure about color, but portrait shooters seem to prefer DPP to ACR for skin tone, particularly those using the 1Ds2. Many of them prefer other converters; C1, RSP, Silkypix, etc. These differences my be less with newer cameras, such as the 5D.

There are some comparisons at

[a href=\"http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm]http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverte...wconverters.htm[/url]

http://www.proimago.net/test/RAW-converter/index.htm

I want ACR to work best, but it hasn't happened for me yet.

Ken
Logged
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2006, 11:37:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Ken, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.  I'll take a look at the links you posted and give DPP another try.  I use the 1Ds2 and generally have been content with what I get from ACR and sharpening with PhotoKit, but I'll now do some comparisons.
Peter
Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2006, 11:06:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Ken, I appreciate you taking the time to answer.  I'll take a look at the links you posted and give DPP another try.  I use the 1Ds2 and generally have been content with what I get from ACR and sharpening with PhotoKit, but I'll now do some comparisons.
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,

Let us know how your comarisons turn out. I'm really looking for an excuse to switch back to ACR. I eagerly download each upgrade, but have been disappointed so far.  AFAIK, it's 1Ds2 users who have been most dissatisfied with ACR, particularly for skin tones. There are a bunch of them on the FM forum who have given up and bought Leica's with DMR's.

Ken
Logged
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2006, 11:28:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Ken, I'm still not getting it.  I tried a number of comparative tests tonight, and I'm failing to see where DPP is better than ACR.  From the way I read the links you kindly posted, I got the impression that ACR came out favourably vs DPP, with a couple of possible exceptions.  For one thing, I've been able to calibrate my camera and ACR, but with DPP I'm having to tweak colours on just about every image, and it just doesn't have the tools to do this with any finesse (unless I'm just inexperienced with using it).

I shot Macbeth colour charts as well as detailed still-life images at multiple ISO values for these tests, and I can't see anywhere where DPP is superior. Quite the contrary in fact.

In the RAW editor the DPP images can be made to look sharper, but that's easily resolved in PS and is one of the first steps when I convert a RAW file - capture sharpen with PK Sharpener and noise reduction (also with camera and ISO-specific profiles) in Noise Ninja.

What particularly keeps you using DPP and rejecting ACR?
Peter
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2006, 11:45:46 AM »
ReplyReply

As a general rule the colors DPP produces are better than ACR.  (Although it sounds like that isn't true for you.)  It also has a very interesting sharpening method.

Its workflow is okay (watch the video at the canon site) compared to previous canon products but is certainly not the best.

I prefer capture one and RSP to either.
Logged
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2006, 11:56:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
AFAIK, it's 1Ds2 users who have been most dissatisfied with ACR, particularly for skin tones.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think I can possibly see how that would arise - when I compare the Macbeth charts in each converter, DPP looks more 'washed out' in a number of colours, particularly red and yellow.  The no.2 patch, supposedly representing caucasian skin tone, is notably less vivd in DPP than ACR, which some I guess could interpret as more 'subtle' in a light skin tone? I'm guessing here...

Perhaps you would get better results from ACR if you calibrate it to your camera? Jonathan Wienke posted a good summary of the process on his website [a href=\"http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/04camera.htm]here[/url].
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad