Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Do you save your originals as DNG or RAW?
DNG - 22 (26.8%)
RAW - 60 (73.2%)
Total Voters: 82

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG or RAW  (Read 16446 times)
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #60 on: January 01, 2014, 03:33:01 PM »
ReplyReply


Nice discussion....but obviously it has not been view as a compelling arguement.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 01, 2014, 03:33:07 PM »
ReplyReply

What data supports your use of "most"? 
How specific is this?: all users not currently converting to DNG.
Logged

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

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 01, 2014, 03:37:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Nice discussion....but obviously it has not been view as a compelling arguement.
Argue for what other than a user option. How does that affect you or anyone else who will never use it. I will NEVER set my 5DMII for JPEG. I'm cool if any or everyone else does.

I don't care if this fix doesn't even cost the manufacturer's a new dial on their camera. Let me use some Firmware update or user setting to give me a DNG. You set it for whatever you want. How is siding with the manufacturer and against the request of fellow photographers hurting you?
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #63 on: January 01, 2014, 03:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

What's not convincing about support from day 1 of their newly-released camera?

Not every one buys on day one.  Last time I did, Canon 5d3, the RAWs were supported by LR by the time I had the camera in hand.

Even if it hadn't, it usually is not a long time for support of mass market cameras.  Plus, if it was really important I could use Canon's software.

 I understand Adobe's business case for DNG.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 01, 2014, 03:40:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Not every one buys on day one.
So that this affects them and not you doesn't count. I would submit that those early buyers who wanted raw support outside the manufacturer's converter were not pleased by this behavior. There was no reason for this disappointment had there been another raw option.
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #65 on: January 01, 2014, 03:43:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Argue for what other than a user option. How does that affect you or anyone else who will never use it. I will NEVER set my 5DMII for JPEG. I'm cool if any or everyone else does.

I don't care if this fix doesn't even cost the manufacturer's a new dial on their camera. Let me use some Firmware update or user setting to give me a DNG. You set it for whatever you want. How is siding with the manufacturer and against the request of fellow photographers hurting you?

Frankly, I don't understand your "logic" above, but...

Andrew, I asked that this not be discussed because of the vociferous and vicious rhetoric of the DNG proponents.  I am not against your or others desire for having DNG.  I get tired of the, "if you are not for it, you are part of the problem" arguments that get put forward.  

We all have the right to our opinions....I respect yours...why can't you respect mine?
Logged

John
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 01, 2014, 03:49:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Not every one buys on day one.  Last time I did, Canon 5d3, the RAWs were supported by LR by the time I had the camera in hand.

Even if it hadn't, it usually is not a long time for support of mass market cameras.  Plus, if it was really important I could use Canon's software.
But some do, and do you never hear them moaning about how they can't use their raw editing software? If you're unlucky, it can be 3 months while you're screwing around with DPP or NX2. Not convincing? Or won't you accept any convincing case, whatever it is?

I understand Adobe's business case for DNG.
Go on then, you explain it.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 01, 2014, 03:49:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I get tired of the, "if you are not for it, you are part of the problem" agruements that get put forward.  
The question asked was why isn't this format adopted and I put the blame where it belongs. Your opinions about DNG are clear and please don't use them. I find it interesting that it's OK to have thousands of proprietary raw files but one more in the mix, one that isn't proprietary is somehow a problem. Don't use it, I'm fine with that. I want an option to get that kind of data from the camera natively and that's super easy to do. So unless this request somehow hurts you, can you request it for us fellow shooters who want it and in no way wish to force that option onto you. Or is there some burden upon you in aiding some of us in our feature requests?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2014, 07:03:10 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #68 on: January 01, 2014, 04:03:30 PM »
ReplyReply

But some do, and do you never hear them moaning about how they can't use their raw editing software? If you're unlucky, it can be 3 months while you're screwing around with DPP or NX2. Not convincing? Or won't you accept any convincing case, whatever it is?

I agree it is an annoyance and/or short term problem.  However, if this is the only "compelling" reason, it is pretty easy to see why DNG has not been accepted universally.

Quote
Go on then, you explain it.

I am shocked that you would need to ask this....isn't it obvious...??
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #69 on: January 01, 2014, 04:14:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The question asked was why isn't this format adopted and I put the blame where it belongs. Your opinions about DNG are clear and please don't use them. I find it interesting that it's OK to have thousands of proprietary raw files but one more in the mix, one that isn't proprietary is somehow a problem. Don't use it, I'm fine with that. I want an option to get that kind of data from the camera natively and that's super easy to do. So unless this request somehow hurts you, can you request it for us fellow shooters who want it and in no way wish to force that option onto you. Or is there some burden upon you in aiding some of us in our feature requests?

So....you admit you can repeatedly express your opinion, but you do not want me to....  Just to be clear, I am NOT against DNG, I just do not see a compelling case....for the manufacturers nor the users....some minor advantages, but...

I do not know, nor, I suspect, do you know, what the true reasons or costs for the manufacturers to convert to DNG.  Nor do I know what would be involved with offering it as an option, though in my experience it would impact not only developments, but, most likely the firmware space and timing within the camera.

It is really easy to sit back and conceptualize a "simple" fix.  I know you have some development experience, but it suspect it did not involve major computer systems hardware, software, and firmware design, development, and testing....if it did, you would know that NOTHING is "simple".
Logged

John
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 01, 2014, 04:38:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I am shocked that you would need to ask this....isn't it obvious...??
Why don't you enlighten us then?
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2014, 04:52:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I noticed you totally ignored my question....which I expected from past experience.
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2014, 06:44:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I noticed you totally ignored my question....which I expected from past experience.

Are you quoting me for a reason....without attribution BTW.

If you are making an attempt to be humorous...or vicious...I did answer your question....which if you were not so blinded by "my way or the highway" would be obvious to any thoughtful person.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2014, 06:52:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Why don't you enlighten us then?

It is pretty simple....translation of RAw to a form Adobe can use falls totally on the manufacturer.  Adobe....and the other RAW converts...now must expend no effort. 

So...added cost for the camera manufacturer and only cost savings for Adobe.  No apparent benefit to end user, other than early adoptors.  Possible diminished code efficiency to Manfacturers and also lack of ability to easily incorporate need ideas due to the need to adher to a standard...and as we know, adoption of new ideas to "standards" is a long, winding road.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, I am sure that cases could be made that could probably hold water, but that goes beyond what is needed right now.
Logged

John
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2014, 06:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

It is pretty simple....translation of RAw to a form Adobe can use falls totally on the manufacturer.  Adobe....and the other RAW converts...now must expend no effort. 

So...added cost for the camera manufacturer and only cost savings for Adobe.  No apparent benefit to end user, other than early adoptors.  Possible diminished code efficiency to Manfacturers and also lack of ability to easily incorporate need ideas due to the need to adher to a standard...and as we know, adoption of new ideas to "standards" is a long, winding road.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, I am sure that cases could be made that could probably hold water, but that goes beyond what is needed right now.

Sorry this does not hold any water - almost all new RAW formats are really DNG in drag!
Read Schewe's post for a bit more detail.
A firmware update would be all that was required in most cases to allow the addition of DNG along with JPEG and the proprietary RAW as image options out-of-camera.

As for the benefits - if you don't get that part, perhaps you never will...

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

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2014, 07:01:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you quoting me for a reason....without attribution BTW.
No. I asked a question, you didn't answer it and that's happened in the past. Is there anything wrong with the language I used?
Logged

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

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2014, 07:12:50 PM »
ReplyReply

It is pretty simple....translation of RAw to a form Adobe can use falls totally on the manufacturer.
Right, just like it does with those JPEGs.
Quote
So...added cost for the camera manufacturer and only cost savings for Adobe.
 
And every raw converter software developer that can read a DNG (easy).
Logged

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

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #77 on: January 02, 2014, 12:15:45 AM »
ReplyReply

This is, once again, a very interesting discussion.  I decided to send a customer support ticket to DXO expressing my opinion on the fact that DXO Pro 9 does not support dng files.  I received a very nice email response explaining that basically the DXO developer team is discussing adding dng support in the future.  No decision has been made and dng support may, or may not be included in a future version.  I responded by giving my personal reasons for using dng format as I was told in their email response that any opinions/views would be passed onto the developers.

I suggest that voicing your opinion directly to the manufacturers and software developers is one of, if not the best, way to bring about change.  I also provided the rep at DXO with a link to this thread in case anyone there is interested in reading your opinions that have been shared here.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 02, 2014, 12:19:49 AM »
ReplyReply

So...added cost for the camera manufacturer and only cost savings for Adobe.  No apparent benefit to end user, other than early adoptors.  Possible diminished code efficiency to Manfacturers and also lack of ability to easily incorporate need ideas due to the need to adher to a standard...and as we know, adoption of new ideas to "standards" is a long, winding road.

Yeah, ya know...I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you again. What you wrote above is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). The added cost to the manufacturers? Just how much would a firmware update cost? If you don't know then you are merely speculating that adding DNG would be costly (hint, it would be easy and cheap for Nikon and Canon to do so if they wanted to–they just don't want to).

Benefit to the end user? The beginning of the end of the wild west comes to mind. It took DNG to teach the camera makers how to formulate a sturdy, documented raw file format (Nikon and Canon had zero clues other that what they "borrowed" from Kodak). If the camera makers adopted DNG (even as an option) it would provide end users with options to use a non-proprietary format. If the camera makers' software also supported DNG (which is actually a different issue) it would enable users to use their own choice of file format while still retaining raw image editing. To date, the only camera maker who supports DNG is Capture One (sadly the DNG support is at least 2 DNG SDK versions behind).

"Diminished code efficiency"? Sorry, that is a non-sequitor...those terms are meaningless. What are you trying to say? That Nikon and Canon are incompetent code developers? (if that's what you mean, I tend to agree, they can barely code their way out of a paper bag). But hey, DNG provides a full fledged SDK as a guide to how to do what you seem to think is a difficult task (hint, it would be easy for Nikon and Canon to add DNG) Fact is, current NEF and CR2 files are so close to DNG that all they would have to do is change how and where they write metadata and do so in the properly documented manner (which is spelled out in the SDK in case Nikon or Canon are having a tough time).

So, you think adhering to a standard is an unbearable burden? They already adhere to several standards such as TIFF-EP and EXIF (well, more or less). Would that mean that Nikon and Canon had to play by the rules? Yep...and that's their primary reason for rejecting DNG at the moment. They don't want to play by any rules (and this is good for the industry how?).

In terms of stifling creativity...bullshit (and you know it-you are talking of the top of your head without any real knowledge if the technical implications that are actually involved). Yes, there have been a couple of times that new cameras required changes to the DNG SDK that would have impacted adoption of DNG with a new camera. When Sony first released a camera whose captures could be stored as raw files, Sony bragged about the fact that they had encrypted the raw file data and that it would take Adobe months to decode the file. Fact is, Dave Coffin had already decoded the encryption...imagine Sony's chagrin when they realized how wrong they were (and point of fact, the appreciated the 3rd party raw file format support when it came to selling cameras).

I'm ok if you don't want DNG-your choice...but it would be useful to stay away from stuff you don't really understand and resist spreading misinformation and making uneducated speculations regarding DNG's viability, usefulness and difficulty in adoption.

The reasons why Nikon and Canon refuse to adopt DNG are primarily political, not technical. The cost of DNG adoption would be minimal, the difficulty adopting minimal. Adopting DNG would not stifle creativity nor prevent new sensors and cameras from coming to market. Yes, adopting DNG would require the camera makers to adopt some standards (which I personally think would be a good thing for the industry–for a change). Adopting DNG is free and Adobe has already offered DNG to the ISO for free (Adobe allowed the ISO to adopt and adapt TIFF-6 for TIFF-EP for free, which of course the camera makers are already using).

Look, DNG is simply a well formed, intelligent and fully documented guide for making raw file formats. Yes, it would require the burden of adopting some standards (finally). While Nikon and Canon cling to their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, the industry continues to suffer from the impact of their rejection of standards. The real secret about all these proprietary raw file formats is the fact that in reality, there are no secrets in the files. The proprietary secrets are in the chips and DSPs that process a raw capture and convert from analog to digital conversion. By the time the capture data is written to media, it's just data. And it's data that Dave Coffin, Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan can "easily" decode (when I say "easily" what I mean is it's time wasted decoding new cameras simply because the camera companies can get away with it–and it's time Thomas and Eric don't have to spend on new processing algorithms).

Personally, I would prefer Thomas and Eric spend their time making my raw images look the best they can possible be rather than wasting time decoding yet another new sensor/camera.

Just so ya know, I'm not interested in getting down into the mud again...let me know if there's anything I wrote that you don't understand but I'm not particularly interested to hearing what you disagree with–again.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1706


« Reply #79 on: January 02, 2014, 12:24:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Why is it that mobile phone manufacturers chose to implement a gazillion of essentially similar chargers/plugs? But when the EU/China demanded that they had to use USB charging, they were quickly able to switch to micro-USB (except Apple, that is).

This seems like a win-win. Manufacturers get to concentrate on building great phones, instead of carrying an inventory of umpteen chargers. Customers gets to have one charger to rule them all. The environment gets to… So why did not this happen before the regulators forced it to happen? This puzzles me. Was it the "not-invented-here" syndrome? Or did the manufacturers actually hope to earn on user lock-in, car-chargers and such?

What does this little story tell us about in-camera DNG?

-h
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad