A Happy Day (And a Warning)

seriousrikk

seriousrikk

Messages
5,881
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Today is a good day, for today I realised that I made a good decision earlier in the year when I started using DNG format. That decision was to embed the original raw files.

Fast forward to last month when I decided to reprocess my images from this year using my newly purchased capture one 4 (I have always like C1, so I treated myself). Well it was hit and miss at how many DNG's it would display and conversion simply didn't work. Phase One suppurt have been incredibly helpful but as yet we have not found a solution.

My lightbulb moment came to day where I thought 'I wonder if I embedded the original raw files'
I did. Now I am busy going thought extracting them all, with a big smile on my face.

The warning - it's only diskspace - embed your RAW files into a DNG unless you plan on keeping them seperately!

ANyone else had DNG issues?
 
I'd have a serious thought about using DNG at all, theres little advantage (only size) and so little support for it you might come unstuck at some future time (and lets not forget adobe are laying staff off, so who knows what the future is there) by all means download the free converters and back up to DNG as well (the belt and braces approach) but ALWAYS keep your original raw, lets face it hard drives/DVD's are cheap enough to back up to these days. Wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'd have a serious thought about using DNG at all, theres little advantage (only size) and so little support for it you might come unstuck at some future time (and lets not forget adobe are laying staff off, so who knows what the future is there) by all means download the free converters and back up to DNG as well (the belt and braces approach) but ALWAYS keep your original raw, lets face it hard drives/DVD's are cheap enough to back up to these days. Wayne
Click to expand...

I think you have just put into words what I am now thinking. I will probably use the DNG convertor as a bulk backup tool in addition to my normal backup. The initial advantage that was sold was 'What if your raw software was changed and your old files were no longer supported?' Based on that I think I want a DNG of everything... but earlier this year I was not so keen on photography and started tinkering with lightroom (And DNG). Seemed like a good idea at the time, it wasn't.

HuntingMartians said:
Is DNG not a raw file?
Click to expand...
No, it is a digital negative format developed by adobe.
You can get a convertor which creates a DNG file from your camera raw file, and if you do make sure you embed the raw file!
 
Whilst I like the idea of DNG, I've archived the original RAW files from my camera, exactly as they were created on the memory card.

The RAW files are your negatives, and you should always ensure that you have the originals - otherwise you're risking thowing away or corrupting data that can never be replaced.

A.
 
I just can't see the point of DNG

Backup your original RAW files
Don't lose/ backup the disk that came with your camera.

All future problems solved.

The initial advantage that was sold was 'What if your raw software was changed and your old files were no longer supported?'
Click to expand...

Or what if Adobe no longer support your version of DNG, like they don't update the ARC for newest cameras unless you buy the latest version of Photoshop.

I just cant understand why people think adobe will continue support for old raw files yet think that Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and the rest won't.
 
It's only disc space as you say, so save the original, one and only, completely unmolested, naked, nude, bare Raw file! If you want future-proof, I agree that you're more likely to get it from Canon/Nikon etc for their Raws than a third party. And try to save it on two different formats if you're paranoid, eg hard-drive and DVD.

As a point of technical accuracy, the Raw file is the film equivalent of a latent image (before it's developed) and not the negative. There's a difference, which is another reason to store Raw ;)

Richard.
 
RichardtheSane said:
No, it is a digital negative format developed by adobe.
You can get a convertor which creates a DNG file from your camera raw file, and if you do make sure you embed the raw file!
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure DNG is a raw file. And adobe want it to be a standard just like jpeg.
 
DNG is, as Richard said, the digital negative format the adobe released in late 2004. The idea with it was that it was their version on RAW. Basically, as I understand it, the DNG file is opened like a RAW file in photoshop, so so as long as they keep the DNG converter updated, newer versions of PS will be able to open old RAW files by means of converting them to DNG first. DNG is an open standard (anyone can use it without paying fees) in RAW photos.

I don't believe Adobe wanted it to take over as the new .JPG
 
The OP could've tried Raw Therapee, SilkyPix, IrfanView etc to open the DNGs.

As for the original software solving all future problems . . . that's usually only possible if you maintain a museum of working obsolete hardware.
 
I think people are confused about what a RAW file is. DNG is just another type of raw file. I use a pentax K20D and it supports pef and DNG both are raw files.
 
HuntingMartians said:
Neither do I. I just believe they want it to be the standard for RAW format.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, I think they want it to be the standard to use in photoshop. It's also so that older, obselete RAW files can be used in newer versions of Photoshop.

I'm still annoyed that neither CS3 nor the DNG converter suport the ORF raw file form my E-420 :bang:
 
DNG is basicly a tiff file, it's classed as raw though. One problem with DNG is theres variations in them (and talk of a new DNG soon from adobe) so it's not quite as standard as they would have us believe.
One problem with "new" file types is support, jpeg 2000 came and went (no longer supported by adobe!) despite the fact it was better than the normal lossy jpeg we know and love.
Microsofts new jpeg type format seems to have been stillborn (haven't heard of it since launch) so in the real world how long before DNG either gets accepted as the "universal" format, or binned by everyone but adobe, possibly even them.
I think the safest approach is to keep your original raw images and keep the raw/dng converter (or convert to dng and keep those as well) thus you have the best of both worlds. Lets not forget, canon/nikon/ or whoever may want to introduce new features in future raw formats that DNG cant or wont be able to support, thats the problem with anything universal, you cant add or change it significantly without it loosing compatability.
Wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
Lets not forget, canon/nikon/ or whoever may want to introduce new features in future raw formats that DNG cant or wont be able to support,
Click to expand...

Very trure, I was surprised to see that even only in a year or so that the basic .ORF file (Olympus RAW format) has changed so much. CS3 for example, will support my bro in law's E-410 (new model) RAW files but not the ones from my 420, and the 2 cameras are pretty much identical.
 
Please bear with me on this - I'd really like to know what you think of Canon's DPP v3.5 free Raw processor, which automatically corrects Canon lens problems like chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting.

What does this mean for the future of 'standardised' post processing software? I think it's very clever and see a major divergence coming up. DPP v3.5 was shipped with the 50D and 5D/2 and works with just about any Canon EOS Raw file and any Canon lens (not sure if update downloads are available yet).

What it does is correct chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting with a mouse click (in adition to noise, dynamic range and the other usual stuff). You can then work futher on the image in all the usual ways, with Photoshop etc. It does this via sets of pre-programmed data for just about every Canon EF and EF-S lens ever made - at all focal lengths and aperture settings.

So, if you feed it an image from a lens like the EF-S 18-200mm or 17-85mm, which is quite likely to have a fair bit of CA, distortion and vignetting, it comes out dramatically improved. You can't do this anything like as well, or nearly so easily, with any other software package. It can't be long before this is all done in-camera and you will get extremely high quality JPEGs straight out of the box.

Canon isn't alone. Nikon has something similar going on in-camera with the D3, D700 and D300 cameras. Panasonic is also doing the same thing in some of it's compacts. No doubt other makers, too. DPReview has some convincing examples in its camera and lens tests but I've found info on this hard to find.

What we are seeing here is individual manufacturers developing really useful new brand-specific image enhancement software features. Stuff that they are very unlikely to release to third parties because it locks you further into their brand, with corresponding commercial advantages. Take it a step further and Canon will be able to produce superior image quality from cheaper, smaller 'less good' lenses. Sigma etc just won't be able to follow, because the cameras will not be programmed to process their images anything like so well, leaving them out in the cold.

What do you think? Has anybody tried it?

Thanks,

Richard.
 
HoppyUK said:
Please bear with me on this .....
Click to expand...
I think this deserves a thread of its own. It's a fascinating development.

You've highlighted the issue that the likes of Sigma and Tamron will be put under pressure by this, because cameras and software produced by camera manufacturers won't correct for the deficiencies in 3rd-party lenses. But it's not as if all lenses are equal anyway. When you're considering buying a new lens, this is just one more difference to take into account.

However, to my mind the really interesting issue is what this does to Adobe. Most serious photographers use Lightroom and/or Photoshop for the bulk of their PP needs. But now all of a sudden Canon are saying that you'll get better results if you use DPP as your RAW converter than if you use any Adobe product. Adobe are going to have to try to copy it - which will cost them money, because they don't have the same data on all the lenses that Canon do. Perhaps Adobe will just buy DxO instead. This might be a good time to hold shares in DxO.
 
WRT lens data and DPP I suspect it's just held as separate files that anyone could make, install and use with the right information. A bit of reverse engineering and Sigma, Tamron, etc. could provide data. Much the same as DXO have their own lens correction data and Adobe have provided profiles that emulate the Canon picture styles.

DPP undoubtedly does the best conversion of raw data but is lacking in just about every other area and is slow and cumbersome to use. Canon seem to be keeping it locked as a raw processor whereas other apps are addressing a much wider range of functionality photographers need and when it comes to choosing processing/storing/keywording/etc in a single app usually wins out.
 
Thanks for your comments Stewart and pxl8 :) Glad I'm not the only one that sees this technology as very significant. It's in its infancy, and who knows where it will go. I will admit it's the main driver behind me now wanting an EF-S 18-200mm lens as the ultimate walkabout! My other lenses might never see the light of day again :eek: This could damage Canon's business. Maybe they're treading carefully at first?

It will surely be built in to Canon DSLRs soon where the camera will know what the lens and settings are, and a highly optimised file will pop straight out with no user input at all. This is what is happening to an extent inside my Lumix FX500 (I can't find out exactly what it's up to) and the LX3 is also doing something. This is surely a killer feature that will have Sigma etc completely stumped - whatever data they generate will never be incorporated into Nikon/Canon etc cameras.

Sure Adobe etc could copy it, but they'd have to do every Canon and Nikon lens for sure, not to mention the massive range of other glass their professional user base shoots on. I doubt that they will go there, as even then their data will also never get incorporated into a camera body, and their expertise is stictly in post-processing, and image manipulation in particular. Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion? I guess ARC is offered as a conveniece more than as a vital commercial hook.

What really interest me is this: we've always had cameras and lenses of course, and there has always been some limited communication between the two. What this 'communication' now amounts to is a big new element in the chain, where the camera and lens have become engaged in a lot of active and 'smart' debate.

Canon's DPP v3.5 comes bundled with the 50D and 5D/2, or it should be available as an upgrade download. Or an official copy costs £12 from Robert Scott Associates. I'd really like to hear from Nikon users who have some similar lens correction facilities built in to the D3, D700 and D300 (I think).

As suggested, I'll start another thread on this.

Thanks again,

Richard.
 
HoppyUK said:
Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion?
Click to expand...

I'm betting yes, they want people to buy Lightroom, their own raw conversion utiility which shares the same code as ACR and was built upon RawShooter which Adobe bought a couple of years back.
 
When I first started working with RAW file 3 or 4 years ago I spent many hours (hundreds I'd say) on them, removing dust mainly, then a bit of colour and contrast adjustment. I used various programs, eventually settling with Lightroom when it came out. Although I still have the raw files, around a couple of years worth of work on them has effectively been lost because the early programs that I tried did not store any history in xmp files. Even after starting with Lightroom, it was a while before I discovered the value of the xmp files and started creating them.

It became apparent after a short time that managing these xmp files was becoming a nuisance. My ACDSee viewer had to be set to display them, so so that renaming, deleting, moving etc included the xmp. Half of the thumbnail display was wasted showing them. Renaming photos doubled the workload.

On discovering that DNG files contained and retained the processing history, I switched without much hesitation. More people seem to have trouble finding a prog to view their raw files than than dng, and Adobe update their converter as quick or quicker than the other prog creators. If Adobe went out of business tomorrow it wouldn't stop me from viewing or processing my existing dngs. I have no qualms about deleting my raws after conversion. Saving them isn't a practical option for me. My last trip generated 150gb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top