Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Do you save your originals as DNG or RAW?
DNG - 22 (27.2%)
RAW - 59 (72.8%)
Total Voters: 81

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG or RAW  (Read 11607 times)
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 385



WWW
« on: December 29, 2013, 07:57:05 AM »
ReplyReply

This question is about DNG or RAW for original camera files. Which format is your choice and why. I'm really more interested in your answers than in the poll but thought it might be interesting o see numbers. I usually don't save JPEG (unless it's the only thing available) and scanner files are TIFF. Files edited in PS are either TIFF or PSD.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2013, 08:19:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Opening up a big can of worms here  Grin

Here are a few reasons I use DNG:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
The format since this article has evolved with more functionality (ability to embed DNG profiles in container, Lossy DNG, Fast Load Previews etc). But biggest reason, it's not a proprietary file format.
Logged

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

Posts: 735


« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2013, 09:58:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Please not again....it is a can of "worms"

Please search for prior, quite vociferous discussions....
Logged

John
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2013, 10:35:44 AM »
ReplyReply

This question is about DNG or RAW for original camera files. Which format is your choice and why.
just don't mix the archival with the workflow (and both with the argument about whether manufactureres shall use DNG or not for in camera raws)... for archival purposes even Adobe's people were on record that they save the original raws /which might be already DNGs for some minority camera makers/ in the form that camera's firmware produced them...  but we have some people here trying to be more popish than the pope  Wink
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2013, 10:43:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Difficult to foresee the future is…

- It is possible to embed the original raw file in DNG, so you can have it both ways.
- Some raw converters support DNG not at all or half heartedly.
- Some raw converters support DNG but not all raw files.

Personally, I feel that all these raw formats are a bad idea and make the community a disservice.

Best regards
Erik



This question is about DNG or RAW for original camera files. Which format is your choice and why. I'm really more interested in your answers than in the poll but thought it might be interesting o see numbers. I usually don't save JPEG (unless it's the only thing available) and scanner files are TIFF. Files edited in PS are either TIFF or PSD.
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2068


« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2013, 04:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Sadly, this is a scenario where philosophy and practicality are in opposition.

Tony Jay
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1861



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2013, 09:31:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, you really cannot save your "originals" as DNG, can you? AFAIK, no camera produces DNG files - it's always the camera maker's RAW format. Yes, Lightroom and other software can convert to DNG, but then it's been converted and IS NO LONGER THE ORIGINAL.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 534


« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2013, 09:54:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, you really cannot save your "originals" as DNG, can you?

Leica 'native' RAW format is DNG. There may be others.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2013, 10:49:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Pentax too. And Hasselblad.
Logged

thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 647


« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2013, 10:51:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes Peter, there are now some other manufacturers that propose to save to DNG format !

Another example is Nokia Lumia 1520.

But that's sadly a minority.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 11:47:07 AM by thierrylegros396 » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2013, 10:52:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Leica 'native' RAW format is DNG. There may be others.

Here's a start in terms of a list:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_cameras.htm
Logged

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

Posts: 154


« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2013, 06:38:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Lightroom and other software can convert to DNG, but then it's been converted and IS NO LONGER THE ORIGINAL.

I am aware that a DNG contains metadata that may not be present in the original, but in what ways does the per pixel content differ from the original?
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2068


« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2013, 09:03:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I am aware that a DNG contains metadata that may not be present in the original, but in what ways does the per pixel content differ from the original?
No difference!

Tony Jay
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2013, 09:13:59 PM »
ReplyReply

No difference!

Tony Jay

I maybe wrong.  However, unless you include the actual RAW data, I do not believe you can claim to have the original data.

If you are going to include the the space for the original RAW data or if you are going to save the original RAW image, I am at a loss to understand the benefit to converting to DNG.

John
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2013, 09:41:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I maybe wrong.  However, unless you include the actual RAW data, I do not believe you can claim to have the original data.
You have all the original raw image data. You care about proprietary metadata and such?
Logged

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

Posts: 2068


« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2013, 11:44:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I maybe wrong.  However, unless you include the actual RAW data, I do not believe you can claim to have the original data.

If you are going to include the the space for the original RAW data or if you are going to save the original RAW image, I am at a loss to understand the benefit to converting to DNG.

The truly daft thing about all of this is that most modern RAW formats are actually based on the DNG standard, most of the "differences" relate to the metadata headers and the encoding of some of the metadata.

Wouldn't it be helpful just to have, at least as an option, the ability to capture RAW images as DNG.
Some manufacturers do use DNG as their native RAW format but it is not yet the norm with more mainstream manufacturers.

Tony Jay
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 30, 2013, 11:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Difficult to foresee the future is…

- It is possible to embed the original raw file in DNG, so you can have it both ways.
- Some raw converters support DNG not at all or half heartedly.
- Some raw converters support DNG but not all raw files.

Personally, I feel that all these raw formats are a bad idea and make the community a disservice.

Best regards
Erik




I agree 100%.  I began converting all of my raw files to dng upon import into Lightroom beginning with Lightroom 4.0.  But, since the release of DXO 9 and specifically it's PRIME noise reduction, I have stopped converting to dng upon import as DXO 9 will not open the Lightroom converted dng files. 

How much of this non acceptance between companies is simply out of spite and how much has an actual technical/workflow reason?
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1675


« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2013, 12:51:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree 100%.  I began converting all of my raw files to dng upon import into Lightroom beginning with Lightroom 4.0.  But, since the release of DXO 9 and specifically it's PRIME noise reduction, I have stopped converting to dng upon import as DXO 9 will not open the Lightroom converted dng files. 
Good point
Quote
How much of this non acceptance between companies is simply out of spite and how much has an actual technical/workflow reason?
The not-invented-here syndrome is a very human thing.

-h
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2013, 01:26:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I do it similar, but embedding the raw image in the DNG file. I essentially ignore DxO for incompatibility with non-linear DNG. I am a base ISO guy, so I don't need noise reduction.

Best regards
Erik


I agree 100%.  I began converting all of my raw files to dng upon import into Lightroom beginning with Lightroom 4.0.  But, since the release of DXO 9 and specifically it's PRIME noise reduction, I have stopped converting to dng upon import as DXO 9 will not open the Lightroom converted dng files.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 01:30:33 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 275


« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2013, 03:19:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I do it similar, but embedding the raw image in the DNG file. I essentially ignore DxO for incompatibility with non-linear DNG. I am a base ISO guy, so I don't need noise reduction.

Best regards
Erik


Erik

You understand that converting to dng effectively locked you in the adobe products? IMHO not a wise long term strategy.



Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad