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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG or RAW  (Read 15285 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #80 on: January 02, 2014, 12:40:38 AM »
ReplyReply

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

It tells us that undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are bad for the industry...and when I say "industry" I'm talking the entire eccosphere of digital photography including; the original camera makers, 3rd party software developers (both big & small) 3rd party hardware developers (as in accessories, cards, readers etc) professional photographers, amateur photographers (and soccer moms), photo labs, ad agencies, prepro houses, graphic arts, printing, media such as magazines and electronic media and social media and humanity at large.

The only people who are currently benefiting from proprietary raw file formats are the camera makers. For everybody else, it a pain in the ass. As Spock used to say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 02, 2014, 01:17:23 AM »
ReplyReply


The only people who are currently benefiting from proprietary raw file formats are the camera makers. For everybody else, it a pain in the ass. As Spock used to say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".


What I don't get is how the proprietary formats can even benefit the camera makers.  Personally I convert everything to DNG on import and the CR2 files simply serve as a temporary backup on a second hard drive.  I honestly don't understand their thinking here.
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #82 on: January 02, 2014, 01:51:35 AM »
ReplyReply

What I don't get is how the proprietary formats can even benefit the camera makers.  
…  
I honestly don't understand their thinking here.
This was the line of thinking that I wanted to discuss. I honestly don't see how proprietary cell phone chargers could benefit the cell phone makers (well, I see a few, but it seems to me that the disadvantages are just as big, or bigger). So why do the camera makers insist on doing proprietary?

1) One obvious possible reason is the not-invented-here syndrome. They have clever people on their payroll. They have invested time into their existing way of doing things. Falling in line with the industry may be hard. Especially in "proud" cultures.

2) Another reason may be that their (typically free) in-house raw development software people feels that proprietary file formats gives them an upper-hand vs competitors.

Both 1 and 2 are "irrational" as seen from the company as a whole. Canon does not exist to boost their R&D people egos, or to make DPP at any cost. They (I would assume) exist for their owners to maximize profits.
The only people who are currently benefiting from proprietary raw file formats are the camera makers. For everybody else, it a pain in the ass. As Spock used to say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
If this is true, I would expect them to continue. Canon & friends have no other responsibility than earning money (abiding the law etc). The question is if the pain this decision is inflicting on their users can be translated into a disadvantage for them (in which case the sum may be a disadvantage to camera manufacturers).

-h
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 01:55:01 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 02, 2014, 02:20:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Both 1 and 2 are "irrational" as seen from the company as a whole. Canon does not exist to boost their R&D people egos, or to make DPP at any cost. They (I would assume) exist for their owners to maximize profits.If this is true, I would expect them to continue.

The reality is it's both 1 & 2...Not Invented Here is a really big motivation in Japan (not racist, just reality). As far as #2, they (Nikon and Canon both) "think" that having an undocumented, proprietary raw file format "might" give them a leg up and it's that "might" that is the main motivation...

If the industry (meaning everybody else other than Nikon and Canon) were to come out really strongly AGAINST undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, they would be far more likely to blink.

That's why it's sad that any photographers would ever consider supporting Nikon and Canon's current misbehavior...

Unfortunately, the more photographers that drink their Kool-Aid and give them any possible wiggle room (meaning reject the call for standards) the longer it will take to make them behave correctly...

I know there are a few people here on LuLa who equate DNG with Evil Adobe Greed...but I can't express just how ignorant and wrong this is...DNG is a gift to the industry by Thomas Knoll. Adobe supported Thomas' desire to develop a raw file format standard...Adobe created DNG for free, revised the DNG SDK multiple times to address industry critiques, offered DNG to the ISO and has bent over backwards to try to help the industry. Sadly, some people still reject the value of DNG for a multitude of motivations (most of which are either ignorant or coming from petty agendas).

Adobe has done a lot for the industry that they don't get credit for...initiatives such as DNG, XMP and other technologies that Adobe has developed and given away for industry use.

The real problem is Nikon and Canon can get away with their misbehavior because way too many photographers are willing to accuse Adobe of being an evil monopoly while giving Nikon and Canon a pass on being petulant brats that refuse to play well with others.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #84 on: January 02, 2014, 03:07:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Add Phase One to the bad guys, too...

Best regards
Erik

The reality is it's both 1 & 2...Not Invented Here is a really big motivation in Japan (not racist, just reality). As far as #2, they (Nikon and Canon both) "think" that having an undocumented, proprietary raw file format "might" give them a leg up and it's that "might" that is the main motivation...

If the industry (meaning everybody else other than Nikon and Canon) were to come out really strongly AGAINST undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, they would be far more likely to blink.

That's why it's sad that any photographers would ever consider supporting Nikon and Canon's current misbehavior...

Unfortunately, the more photographers that drink their Kool-Aid and give them any possible wiggle room (meaning reject the call for standards) the longer it will take to make them behave correctly...

I know there are a few people here on LuLa who equate DNG with Evil Adobe Greed...but I can't express just how ignorant and wrong this is...DNG is a gift to the industry by Thomas Knoll. Adobe supported Thomas' desire to develop a raw file format standard...Adobe created DNG for free, revised the DNG SDK multiple times to address industry critiques, offered DNG to the ISO and has bent over backwards to try to help the industry. Sadly, some people still reject the value of DNG for a multitude of motivations (most of which are either ignorant or coming from petty agendas).

Adobe has done a lot for the industry that they don't get credit for...initiatives such as DNG, XMP and other technologies that Adobe has developed and given away for industry use.

The real problem is Nikon and Canon can get away with their misbehavior because way too many photographers are willing to accuse Adobe of being an evil monopoly while giving Nikon and Canon a pass on being petulant brats that refuse to play well with others.
Logged

Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 02, 2014, 04:22:55 AM »
ReplyReply

The reality is it's both 1 & 2...Not Invented Here is a really big motivation in Japan (not racist, just reality). As far as #2, they (Nikon and Canon both) "think" that having an undocumented, proprietary raw file format "might" give them a leg up and it's that "might" that is the main motivation...

My own theory is that the "proprietary" mentality is completely hard wired into Canon and Nikon's corporate world view.  To be fair, while in the case of file formats this is completely irrational, I can understand the wider mentality because it has served them so well in the past.  For example, I have always bought Canon.  Why is this?  Because I started with Canon and now own over $5000 worth of EF mount lenses which I really like.  So I'm going to continue buying Canon bodies until they discontinue the EF mount system.  I am sure that other manufacturers make better bodies but the fact is that Canon have locked me in, and I am fine with that.

In the case of their refusal to use DNG the mentality is completely irrational because it does not make their system any more or less sticky to the consumer, but I guess it is just a kneejerk thing for them.  After all, the strategy has served them well in the past.

It would be totally cool if some geek out there were to start making firmware hacks for all the major Canon and Nikon bodies to allow DNG output.  While they are about it they could add a custom function to map a button on the Canon bodies to Mirror Lock Up!  I don't know if this is possible though. Undecided
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


« Reply #86 on: January 02, 2014, 07:35:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The reality is it's both 1 & 2...Not Invented Here is a really big motivation in Japan (not racist, just reality). As far as #2, they (Nikon and Canon both) "think" that having an undocumented, proprietary raw file format "might" give them a leg up and it's that "might" that is the main motivation...

If the industry (meaning everybody else other than Nikon and Canon) were to come out really strongly AGAINST undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, they would be far more likely to blink.

That's why it's sad that any photographers would ever consider supporting Nikon and Canon's current misbehavior...

Unfortunately, the more photographers that drink their Kool-Aid and give them any possible wiggle room (meaning reject the call for standards) the longer it will take to make them behave correctly...

I know there are a few people here on LuLa who equate DNG with Evil Adobe Greed...but I can't express just how ignorant and wrong this is...DNG is a gift to the industry by Thomas Knoll. Adobe supported Thomas' desire to develop a raw file format standard...Adobe created DNG for free, revised the DNG SDK multiple times to address industry critiques, offered DNG to the ISO and has bent over backwards to try to help the industry. Sadly, some people still reject the value of DNG for a multitude of motivations (most of which are either ignorant or coming from petty agendas).

Adobe has done a lot for the industry that they don't get credit for...initiatives such as DNG, XMP and other technologies that Adobe has developed and given away for industry use.

The real problem is Nikon and Canon can get away with their misbehavior because way too many photographers are willing to accuse Adobe of being an evil monopoly while giving Nikon and Canon a pass on being petulant brats that refuse to play well with others.

Well companies that want to use a "American" format must be 100% sure that there are no "patent" issues (remember gif, jpeg (!),...), with adobe, but also with all other possible patents.  This can be costly and if not done 100%  right could be still be a lot more problems.   

I don't expect a big camera maker to gamble on that.


Logged
Damon Lynch
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 02, 2014, 07:51:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The reality is it's both 1 & 2...Not Invented Here is a really big motivation in Japan (not racist, just reality).

I'm all in favor of an open, evolving, documented standard for RAW, and if DNG were more popular that would be great. But if someone can tell us how we got to this state of affairs then I'm all eyes and ears:

  • Canon's raw software developer DPP can modify CR2 files in post processing. In so doing it can greatly increase the file size. In certain aspects through this process DPP can produce noticeably superior results to Adobe ACR / Lightroom. Martin Bailey, who is a much better photographer than me, explains it here.
  • DNG convertor will produce absolutely identical output from a CR2 regardless of whether DPP has modified the CR2 or not (it's obviously easy to confirm this). The obvious conclusion is that it simply ignores the modifications (extra data) that Canon introduces into the CR2. This is a huge pity. It's a raw file and Canon's optical scientists clearly know their stuff!

I guess their could be many reasons for this. Maybe Canon doesn't want to share their cool technology with Adobe (why not?). Maybe Adobe would have to pay Canon and they don't want to? Maybe it's too much work for Adobe and they don't want to make ACR more complex? Maybe it's coming in the next major revision of ACR? Or maybe this situation is an example of why Canon et al. like to retain absolute control of the file format their cameras produce?

Speaking as a user, it seems to me the major villain in this whole state of affairs is the proprietary nature of most photography software itself. The incentives are too great for companies to act in a too-narrow self-interest. I applaud Adobe for trying to do the right thing regarding DNG.

Finally, as an aside, I guess someone somewhere has written a good academic paper contrasting why some standards become real standards and others fall by the wayside.
Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 02, 2014, 08:44:27 AM »
ReplyReply

  • Canon's raw software developer DPP can modify CR2 files in post processing. In so doing it can greatly increase the file size. In certain aspects through this process DPP can produce noticeably superior results to Adobe ACR / Lightroom. Martin Bailey, who is a much better photographer than me, explains it here.

That's really interesting, I didn't know that.  Thanks for the link and the knowledge.

However, I still don't understand Canon's strategy.  Canon make superb camera bodies and lenses.  This is how they make their money.  They certainly don't make any money from their free DPP software - possibly the least usable image editing programme I have ever seen, notwithstanding any clever under the hood stuff.  Seriously, how many photographers do you know of who actually use DPP on a regular basis?  No?  Me neither.  Canon have to give the software away and still nobody uses it.

Given that Canon's business is to sell cameras and lenses, surely it would be in their interest to make all their clever under-the-hood stuff freely available to the developers at Adobe, Apple, DxO and whoever else wants it.  If Canon's lens correction algorithms work well and could be incorporated into Lightroom et al, then this would (a) be good for those Canon users who use third party RAW editing software, and (b) possibly become a source of competitive advantage to Canon.  Leaving these algorithms stuck in a piece of software which basically nobody ever uses just seems such a waste.
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
papa v2.0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #89 on: January 02, 2014, 09:26:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I think its about time Adobe made a camera!
Ho Ho Ho
happy new year everbody
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3767


« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2014, 09:33:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Given that Canon's business is to sell cameras and lenses, surely it would be in their interest to make all their clever under-the-hood stuff freely available to the developers at Adobe, Apple, DxO and whoever else wants it.

Hi Ed,

What some of the DNG advocates conveniently forget to mention is that e.g. Canon is one of the more prolific producers of intellectual property / recipients of Patents. For example in the USA, they are ranking in the very top, often in 3rd or 4th position.

Now imagine that Canon would want to commercialize one of those patents, and use it in their own equipment. Even to allow usage by others without them paying royalties (which is unlikely for a commercial enterprise), they would probably have to make sure that it can be encoded in the DNG so that it can be used. That would alarm their competitors and give them an early warning about what is to come and which direction their competitor is going, long before it materializes.

It would be safer and easier to not disclose the proprietary data, but why then hide it in a DNG. What's the benefit for Canon? They might as well keep it proprietary from the start and avoid having to deal with changing a standard by committee, and waste time and effort.

Of course the benefit of standardization for Adobe is much larger, not having to adapt to all those camera makers of those dreaded proprietary Raw formats (think about the quality of Fuji Xtrans conversions, or Foveon files, or the earlier encrypted Nikon white-balance data), so they try to enforce some sort of common flexible system that saves themselves cost and effort in the long run. That also explains their benevolent altruism to take the lead in creating some open standards, it's for their own benefit (more than for others if any) and reduces the risk of having to conform to someone else's standard, or even worse having to pay for it, at a later stage.

It's nothing to do with not-invented-here syndromes or politics or being altruistic, it's all about money (and Adobe is no different than others, as the move to cloud subscriptions proves).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 09:55:22 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 02, 2014, 10:05:22 AM »
ReplyReply

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. 
Thank you for that effort. IF those who spend countless hours arguing against a simple option for fellow photographers would spend a the fraction of the time it takes to do what you did, we might see a change within our industry. I applaud you and all other's who make your preferences known to those who you've spent your money on.

DNG or Proprietary raw, it is my data. Should I be forced to use one lab to process my film?
Quote
Given that Canon's business is to sell cameras and lenses, surely it would be in their interest to make all their clever under-the-hood stuff freely available to the developers at Adobe, Apple, DxO and whoever else wants it.
Or not, that's fine with me. IF they build a better raw processor solely using their proprietary stuff, it is up to us to decide if we want that or not. This is all about options, nothing more. IF given the option's today of proprietary and better processing in DPP or use the workflow I've developed using LR, I'd stick with LR but that's my choice. How other photographers can argue that providing options in the data that comes off the camera, be it DNG or a TIFF instead of a JPEG is totally unwarranted and unnecessary. Uncool too!
Logged

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

Posts: 135


WWW
« Reply #92 on: January 02, 2014, 10:19:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Andrew,

As I understand your argument, it boils down to this:

  • proprietary data formats are a social evil because you give up control of something you own
  • proprietary algorithms to process that data are socially benevolent because you pragmatically believe our current ability to control those processes is adequate

Am I missing something?
Damon
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #93 on: January 02, 2014, 10:27:36 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be safer and easier to not disclose the proprietary data, but why then hide it in a DNG. What's the benefit for Canon? They might as well keep it proprietary from the start and avoid having to deal with changing a standard by committee, and waste time and effort.
my beloved example is the story of how Panasonic introduced software optics correction back then and how much time it took Adobe to support it in .DNG... so what DNG camp 'd suggest to Panasonic then ? disclose the move to competition in advance ? go through the hassle to hide optics correction data in DNG maker notes first and then to support what Adobe invented (rewrite their firmware code twice) ? etc... with their own format Panasonic was free to do it how they see it fit and when they see it fit... that goes to as to why camera manufacturers (except low single digit % of the market represented by Ricoh, Leica, few others) do not want to have their hands tied (not about 2 other issues : DNG as a workflow option and converted DNG as a sole archival format w/ discarding original raw files)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 10:30:04 AM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #94 on: January 02, 2014, 10:32:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I think its about time Adobe made a camera!

indeed... remember how M$ ventured into tablets... Google into actual phones (and not just prototypes for developers to use) w/ their purchase of relevant parts of Motorola... so tomorrow Adobe will start making imaging devices and that adds to the reasons why you don't want to be in bed w/ Adobe about "in-camera" formats, not if you are not an irrelevant player marketwise (like Ricoh and other adopters).
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #95 on: January 02, 2014, 10:33:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Is there any code involved, not just a couple of tags describing the errors to be corrected?

Best regards
Erik


my beloved example is the story of how Panasonic introduced software optics correction back then and how much time it took Adobe to support it in .DNG... so what DNG camp 'd suggest to Panasonic then ? disclose the move to competition in advance ? go through the hassle to hide optics correction data in DNG maker notes first and then to support what Adobe invented (rewrite their firmware code twice) ? etc... with their own format Panasonic was free to do it how they see it fit and when they see it fit... that goes to as to why camera manufacturers (except low single digit % of the market represented by Ricoh, Leica, few others) do not want to have their hands tied (not about 2 other issues : DNG as a workflow option and converted DNG as a sole archival format w/ discarding original raw files)
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #96 on: January 02, 2014, 10:35:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there any code involved, not just a couple of tags describing the errors to be corrected?
code, no matter how small LOC number actually is, is always involved...
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #97 on: January 02, 2014, 11:12:59 AM »
ReplyReply

  • proprietary data formats are a social evil because you give up control of something you own
  • proprietary algorithms to process that data are socially benevolent because you pragmatically believe our current ability to control those processes is adequate

Am I missing something?

I believe you are, a lot. Let me try again.

I have no issue with proprietary data. As long as you understand where and when it's useful. Nearly all the processing in Adobe products are proprietary. Adjustment layers, the text that tells ACR what +14 Vibrance should do. I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is the creation of a new proprietary raw format for each camera who's affect is on users is keeping them from processing that data as they desire until the unnecessary proprietary data is hacked by all the other converters so they can actually ignore the use of that proprietary data. There is no reason for this. There is a reason why +14 Vibrance exists and is only understood by the product that build that set of instructions. Those instructions are gobbledegook in any other raw converter but that's not a problem and is expected.

That proprietary data could be inserted within a tag within the DNG such it's still proprietary AND it doesn't keep users from accessing their data the day the camera ships is the point I believe you are missing.

The camera manufacturer's under discussion here provide two formats and only two. One is an open format that is accessible the day the camera ships. But it's a JPEG. The other isn't an open format and isn't accessible the day the camera ships expect in the camera vendor's software few of us wish to use. AND a couple months later, thanks to the efforts (time and money) of all other raw converter manufactures, that limitation which never needed to exist in the first place is gone! So how do you justify this on-going practice as useful to anyone? It's perhaps not beneficial to the camera manufacturers. Especially if their customers make their desires known.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 11:14:31 AM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 135


WWW
« Reply #98 on: January 02, 2014, 11:33:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Andrew,

So to put it another way you believe proprietary formats for data (including data you create) are socially benevolent when the algorithms that can be expected to process them proprietary too. Your expectation is that data that comes from a camera ought not to be proprietary because there already exist generic proprietary processes to manipulate the data, e.g. ACR. If there weren't presumably you wouldn't have problem because you're not against proprietary data formats per se.

From my perspective your argument is exceedingly narrow -- much more narrow for instance than the debates that emerged around the establishment of ISO standards for word processing and spreadsheet data formats, for instance.

Damon
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 02, 2014, 11:38:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Your expectation is that data that comes from a camera ought not to be proprietary because there already exist generic proprietary processes to manipulate the data, e.g. ACR.
I simply want access from day one to the unrendered raw image data. I don't care about any of the other data. Proprietary or otherwise.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad