Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you DNG ???  (Read 51211 times)
pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2006, 12:02:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As a general rule the colors DPP produces are better than ACR.  (Although it sounds like that isn't true for you.)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63272\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I certainly noticed a great improvement in the colours I'm getting from ACR after I calibrated it to my cameras.  I'll certainly look for the video on the Canon website: my workflow is quite neatly set up with Bridge and ACR, but I'm always willing to learn and change if it gives me preferable results (I'm beginning to think 'preferable' might be the operative word here   )!
Peter
« Last Edit: April 21, 2006, 12:04:32 PM by pobrien3 » Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2006, 09:10:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Peter,
Thanks for the results of your comaparison. It seems that there is not much agreement regarding the "best" converter. I seem to be getting sharper images with DPP compared to sharpening in PSCS2, but maybe I'd do better yet using PK Sharpener, Nik, FocalBlade, etc. I don't sharpen is PSCS2 until last, as my second-to-last procedure is usually to resample. I haven't tried profiling my camera for color, but will look at Jonathan's procedure. I have profiled my camera for Noise Ninja. I don't like to use it below ISO 400, as there is some loss of sharpness.

Although I really like ACR's highlight recovery feature, my impression is that DPP does a little smoother transition from very bright to clipped highlights.

I'm still struggling to improve my images, but I'd know much less without the input of everybody on these forums. To all who take the time to share their experience and expertise, I'm profoundly grateful.

Ken
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2006, 08:36:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't want to rely on some proprietary format (in my case Canon).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason.
[a href=\"http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/viewtopic.php?t=3234&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dng&start=15]http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15[/url]
« Last Edit: April 23, 2006, 08:46:53 PM by Serge Cashman » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2444



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2006, 01:36:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason. http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What, you mean proprietary in the sense that it's not publically documented, like Canon files are?  And that developers risk breaking copyright law if they write programs that decode or write a DNG? Like reverse engineering Nikon WB?  And that any browsing or cataloguing program needs to take a blind guess if they want to update DNG files' metadata or embedded ACR preview? Or raw developers can't legally or technically add their own raw processing instructions to DNG files' XMP metadata if they wanted to do so? Whatever your feelings about DNG's usefulness in your workflow, proprietary is not the right word.

Read [a href=\"http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=483.0]http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=483.0[/url] for an up to date view on why Bibble don't support DNG.

John
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 01:52:46 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2006, 01:38:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think DNG is a propriatary format. Bibble people (that in my opinion are the best at reverse-engeneering RAW formats) are pretty much uninterested in DNG for that particular reason.
http://support.bibblelabs.com/webboard/vie...ht=dng&start=15
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

DNG is proprietary in the same way that TIFF is proprietary. Adobe own both but choose to make TIFF and DNG freely avaialble to anyone to use without claiming license fees.

Adobe currently offer DNG in the same spirit as TIFF - for the free use of all. So far their track record with TIFF has been good - no reason to suppose that will change with DNG, but the cynic might say 'yet'.

Personally, I am keeping the faith. DNG is too useful to ignore.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2006, 01:50:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link, Serge. Very thoughtful debate on both sides of the argument.

I don't DNG. If the format gets fully adopted, I'll be sure to convert all my valued files. Until then, I don't see a reason to. I'm an amateur photographer who takes plenty of photographs, but I simply don't have the immense volume of RAW files that professional photographers have. If I were a professional photographer, I might be more concerned about the amount of time it would take to convert years and years of photographs on the eve of the RAW format's obselescence. From what I understand, file formats don't become obselete overnight, it's a gradual process of orphanage as the new format(s) are adopted by users. If I were a professional photographer, I would probably be cautious and archive in several formats to ensure speedy recovery in the future.

 If there's a point where I NEED DNG to use the latest and greatest digital darkroom software, so be it. I always have my most valued files at hand, and since I'm not dealing with the incredible amount of photo-assets that professional photographers have, it wouldn't be a problem to convert my files when my Canon 300D raw files become universally obselete. I just think it's a little hasty to jump aboard the DNG bandwagon with respect to the file format's infancy. I'm one of those who is concerned with a possible loss of data through converting files to DNG... if the process can't be fully reversed, and adobe gives the silly option of including the original RAW file in the DNG, I believe it's reasonable to say that Adobe isn't even sure that DNG preserves ALL of the valuable image data. The file format is too young to risk putting all my eggs in that one basket... in this sense, archiving in RAW and DNG is the most safe, but probably not practical in terms of storage costs for most of us... but I think archiving in TIFF is a mistake, because the size of a 16-bit TIFF doesn't have all the data a RAW file contains, is generally much larger than a RAW file, and since it has already been processed with a potentially obselete piece of software (say if you were to access a TIFF ten years from now), you wouldn't be able to use modern software to reap the benefits of the data you discarded in the conversion to TIFF (this argument may or may not be true with respect to the archival potential of DNG... only time will tell, truly)

I strongly believe that the solution to keeping digital photographs usable in the future is simply being aware of the technological advances around you. When your RAW format becomes unusable, archive in the adopted format. I'm always aware of innovations of software around me, and I think that as digital photographers, we should have great interest in preserving our art (In this sense, whether you are for or against *currently* adopting the DNG format, we should agree on this. We all want to access our files in the future). I think this is an active process of working with our files, and transferring specific files from media type to media type puts us very close to what we want to preserve, rather than working to satisfy fears of obselescence as soon as a new format is introduced, working at once to archive them in several formats and lay our fears to rest for several years while they collect dust on expensive hard drives or digital discs in our closets. I fully embrace the concept of a universal raw-type, but I don't plan on doing so until I know all the facts.

 I don't believe we can truly say, yet, that DNG contains all the valuable data of all the various types of RAW files, which may be utilized in the future. There might be a universal RAW filetype which is used instead of DNG. Such is the adaptation of technology. Just because Thomas Knoll from Adobe says so-and-so about his DNG format isn't good enough for me.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 01:55:54 AM by oldcsar » Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2444



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2006, 01:59:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The file format is too young to risk putting all my eggs in that one basket...
I think that's a key point. I DNG, but I don't throw away my raw files, because space is cheap and the conversion happens when I'm doing something more important, like sleeping.

DNG helps me to avoid "drowning in pixels". There are two sides of that coin - one's the raw processing, and I like the ACR results/workflow, but the other is finding the damn things and their derivatives too. DNG seems the best way we've got to integrate raw processing and digital asset management.

John
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 02:00:15 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

pobrien3
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 320


« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2006, 11:22:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that's a key point. I DNG, but I don't throw away my raw files, because space is cheap and the conversion happens when I'm doing something more important, like sleeping.

DNG helps me to avoid "drowning in pixels". There are two sides of that coin - one's the raw processing, and I like the ACR results/workflow, but the other is finding the damn things and their derivatives too. DNG seems the best way we've got to integrate raw processing and digital asset management.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm right with you there.  I find it takes mere minutes to copy all RAWs from a shoot to DNG, and at the point I decided to adopt the format I converted over 12,000 RAW files in one go.  I set it off early in the evening before dinner and ignored it until the next morning when it was done - I have no idea how long it actually took: might have been 2 hours, might have been 14 hours.  The point is I did it unattended, and it frankly doesn't matter how long it took. If you have a slow PC, let it run all weekend.

Importantly, I keep both RAW and DNG.  It's belt and braces, but storage is cheap and the workflow overhead is negligible.

Oldcsar made a very important point - keep an eye on the changes in standards / formats / storage media etc., and at some point a re-archive to some new paradigm will have to happen.  How many folk backed CD as an archival media only to find after just a couple of years they can't read the disks?  Will ACR always be able to read my 10D files?

I personally use an external hot-swappable RAID-5 array, and in addition to that I archive RAW and DNG to separate, off-array SATA disks.  That'll probably be good for about the next 3-5 years until someone comes up with a better storage media than the HDD.
Peter
Logged
bruce fraser
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2006, 12:55:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
From what I understand, file formats don't become obselete overnight,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8027



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2006, 02:17:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And let's not forget what a DCS 460 cost in those days; a LOT of money.
Logged

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

Posts: 126


« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2006, 03:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That was NOT my experience with the Kodak DCS 460....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, the programs which you used to manipulate your RAW files suddenly stopped processing them? I'm not questioning the fact that a rather expensive Kodak camera was discontinued, and subsequently its RAW file format, I'm getting across my opinion that there's no need to rush into DNG when my particular camera (or someone else's) is still well supported. When it's no longer supported, I'll take the option to convert the files with DNG converter, or whatever happens to take its place... I could do so today with DNG, but I choose not to. I'll take your word that your experience with the Kodak DCS 460 shows the contrary, but aren't we talking about a camera that was made in 1995? With the massive changes in the DSLR market, it would be expected that such a format from a discontinued camera would no longer be supported in modern software. I certainly can't play my old DOS games from 1994 (Lands of Lore, Throne of Chaos) in Windows XP, with the advances in OS architecture and the outdated structure of old dos games. However, there are always options. I can play my old dos games in windows xp with a program called Dosbox. I'm only pointing this out because I believe that where there are enough people who value a digital asset, whether it be photos, games, or software, there are always options. DNG could be one.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 03:28:32 PM by oldcsar » Logged

PeterLange
Guest
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2006, 03:26:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I’m sure it was mentioned before and I apologize for not reading carefully enough. However, the original Raw file can be embedded as part of the DNG. And it can be extracted again and recreated 'as it was' (as far as I can tell).

See Jeff Schewe’s articles:
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/23/dng-workflow-part-i/
http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/25/dng-workflow-part-ii/

Means less files at the cost of higher DNG file size. Makes sense for me.

Peter

--
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 03:28:31 PM by PeterLange » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2006, 09:36:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whatever your feelings about DNG's usefulness in your workflow, proprietary is not the right word.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, "less propriatary than NEF but you have to embed NEF anyway if you want to keep the original information" - sounds good?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 09:37:39 PM by Serge Cashman » Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2006, 11:30:57 PM »
ReplyReply

DNG keeps all of the original metadata information from any of the newer raw formats such as the newest iterations of NEF, Canon's CR2, etc. In fact, proprietary file could be re-created from a DNG not containing the original proprietary file if there was software available to do so. With older formats (such as canon's CRW) some metadata is tossed since it can't be interpreted but all of the image information is maintained.

Another interesting point is that most proprietary raw files are in fact based off a variation of the tif format already. So the argument that DNG is problematic since it's based off tiff and Adobe owns tiff has little merit since that "problem" already exists.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 11:33:06 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2444



WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2006, 04:32:52 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, Serge, we agree there. One little point - if, as some say, Capture One can produce better raw conversions than the camera makers' software, then what really is the value of all that secret information? I say this just for argument's sake as my D200 appears to write the active focus point to the secret metadata and it'd be so nice to jump directly to that spot on the computer screen.

I put the archiving / obsolesence issues to one side. To my mind they come down to a future where the specific program, that you really want to use, is unable to read the "obsolete" raw files, rather than the admittedly fundamental question of future readability.

I think one of the keys to whether to go DNG is the relative importance to each photographer of digital asset management and raw processing. If the former plays a bigger role, then DNG has big advantages in terms of carrying metadata within the raw image and in its derivatives, in moving between cataloguing programs, in carrying an ACR adjusted preview that can be "leveraged" by other programs. If the choice of raw processing engine is more important - or should I say if the photographer doesn't really value DAM issues - then there's going to be less advantage to a DNG workflow until other programs offer 360 degree support, not just reading the DNG file but saving a second preview back to it or storing processing instructions in its extensible XMP metadata.

I switched to DNG with CS2's release and feel it lets me lock the DAM down so tightly that I spend less time on finding the bloody things and more time on shooting and post processing. For instance, the DNG contains the metadata, its Photoshop derivatives therefore do, and I save them in a folder that's automatically catalogued in iView, meaning no need to re-enter metadata. Since my current main cataloguing program, iView, can write the metadata into NEF files too, I have questioned the DNG route but the deciding factor is the DNG's embedded preview, cropped, WB'd, etc.

John
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 04:34:46 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

bruce fraser
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2006, 12:41:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, the programs which you used to manipulate your RAW files suddenly stopped processing them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When the last machine I had that ran the last-supported version of the OS that supported the Kodak DCS 460 software died, yes, the programs I used to manipulate my RAW files suddenly stopped processing them.
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2006, 06:01:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with the DAM argument. One of the reasons I use Nikon Capture is because it writes the adjustments into NEF files themselves (I save them as copies obviously). It makes my workflow even more dependant on propriatary solutions but requires less file management.

And I am very much aware of the file format obsolescence issue.

Generally I would much rather have a completely non-propriatary workflow. But the fact that I can't get the files converted the way I like in a DNG workflow is a big issue. I can't justify using DNG for the  time being.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 09:23:43 PM by Serge Cashman » Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2006, 09:42:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DNG keeps all of the original metadata information from any of the newer raw formats

I think Adobe and many other converters misinterpret the original image data somehow. The results from Nikon Capture and Bibble (at "no adjustments" settings) are so drastically different from other converters.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2006, 09:50:40 PM »
ReplyReply

They just do different conversions.  You get different results with the assorted canon converters.
Logged
Prognathous
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2006, 04:33:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Are there any disadvantages to using DNG over TIFF?

Prog.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad