Are you converting your RAW images to DNG?

Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

Thanks!

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

Check it out.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html

Probably not so many using it unless they have a new camera thats RAW format
is not supported by their favourite photo package. Only one camera I can
think of supports DNG directly from the camera and that is the Pentax K10D.

"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

Thanks!

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:18:56 +1000, "Pete D"
wrote:

Probably not so many using it unless they have a new camera thats RAW format
is not supported by their favourite photo package. Only one camera I can
think of supports DNG directly from the camera and that is the Pentax K10D.

....apart from models from Ricoh, Leica, Haselblad ;-)

--
John Bean

JC Dill wrote:
Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...file_format%29

Not read up on these raw formats so much, but maybe it's possible to set some
default postprocessing directives + raw pixels or have several profiles. Such
that you can *always* change your mind later?

"/\BratMan/\" wrote in message
...

"JC Dill" wrote in message
...
Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

Check it out.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html

i'd say it's kinda risky to stick with DNG...format is relatively new, not
used very often and we don't know if it will stick. IF it will, there's
always a way to convert later, if not and someone would have all pics in DNG
it would be hard time to get a software who will read it, while i think it's
not a matter when using RAW, since almost all decent photo software reads
it.
I think it's best to wait for a while and see what happens...

JC Dill wrote:

Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. ... I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.


I'm not converting (and no one I know or photograph with converts
either) for a couple of reasons ... first, the RAW converter I prefer
doesn't read DNG format, so it's primarily a Photoshop thing right now.
Second, the early versions of the Adobe converter deleted some of the
EXIF info so if you just converted without keeping a copy of the
original RAW files you would have lost potentially valuable
information. Supposedly this has been fixed in later versions but
there's no way to be sure since the programs I sometimes use to get
EXIF info don't accept DNG and Photoshop doesn't make use of a lot of
the EXIF info that's available in my camera files.

You can convert a few and play with them in Photoshop, it's simple to
do this ...what you'll quickly learn is that to Photoshop a DNG file
looks identical to a RAW file. So as long as you have native RAW
support it's hard for me to find an argument for converting.

DNG came about because people were worried that their proprietary RAW
format files might not be supported in the future. This is a good
long-term reason to have a universal format like DNG but it's not an
immediate concern to most of us, especially if you have a mainstream
camera like a Nikon or Canon.

It seems to me there are three advantages to DNG ... one is the "in 20
years you may not be able to convert .cr2 or .crw files" ... if this
comes to pass it won't take long to batch convert copies to DNG though.

Second the DNG files are a bit smaller than RAW files so if storage
space is an issue this is a bonus. I think the DNGs I converted were
about 80-85% the size of my Canon files for example, but with external
HDs available for well under $1 a GB this isn't important to me.

Finally when a new camera comes out and you have no converter for it
except the camera maker's software you can convert to DNG (if Adobe has
a converter for it) and then use your current DNG-supported converter
with it. For example if you have Photoshop CS and buy a Canon 400d or
Nikon D2xs or D80 you will find there will be no native RAW conversion
support for these from Adobe, but once Adobe brings out a RAW - DNG
plug in for these you can convert to DNG and then use the earlier
version of Photoshop.

I don't use it myself but I can see the advantages in some situations.
But I can get useful EXIF info like a grid of the auto-focus points
with the one(s) active in red, or the total number of shutter
actuations from programs that read only the RAW files so it would make
no sense to me to convert to DNG.

Bill

On Oct 8, 8:25 am, JC Dill wrote:
Reading the DAM book (chapter 1, online), it suggests that RAW images
be converted to DNG. Googling on DNG I find that it's a format
created by Adobe in September 2004, over 2 years ago. This is the
first I've heard of this format, so apparently it's not getting widely
adopted and discussed. I'm curious if anyone here is using DNG, and
if so why you made that choice.

It is widely adopted and discussed. Towards the end of last year, a
survey identified that about 17% of professional photographers in North
America were using it. More than 140 (not-Adobe) products from more
than 130 companies support it in some way. The Library of Congress
identifies DNG as preferable to using any other raw formats for
purposes of digital preservation. It is discussed in DPReview most
days.

For many people, the main obstacle to using it at the moment is lack of
support from Canon, Nikon, Capture One, and Bibble. (There are other
companies and products that don't support it, but in comparison they
are relatively insignificant). Capture One will support it in version
4, recently announced. However, writers who advocate DNG typically use
Canon or Nikon so that isn't a total blocker. (Peter Krogh, the author
of the DAM Book, uses Nikon).

There are aspects where DNG is uncontroversially better than
alternative formats:

1. It is openly documented.

2. It is supported by a freely-available optional source-code-based
SDK.

3. There are public royalty-free licenses for anyone to use the
specification and the SDK and to supply products based on these.

4. DNG is based on the principle of "no unnecessary differences"
between manufacturers and models.

5. DNG files contain parameters describing camera and sensor
characteristics.

6. DNG has a version scheme that enables the DNG specification, DNG
readers, and DNG writers, to evolve at their own paces, under control.

There are several cameras and digital backs that use DNG in-camera; 3
were announced during September 2006, including the Pentax K10D. A
number of camera manufacturers supply their own DNG Converters to
convert their own formats into DNG, and a couple of them provide
software that can process DNGs for their own cameras. Some other DNG
Converters have been developed by "amateurs" to enable the raw files
from their (niche) cameras & digital backs to be processed by
mainstream raw converters.

There is a lot of information here, including more about all of the
above:
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/

On Oct 8, 4:07 pm, "Bill Hilton" wrote:
[snip]
It seems to me there are three advantages to DNG ...
[snip]

I believe the main advantage of DNG isn't one of those you listed. But
it IS the trigger for this thread.

DNG is a good format for holding rights management and asset management
metadata. And that is why Peter Krogh, the author of The DAM Book,
advocates it. It enables a single file to contain:

- The raw image data.

- Metadata describing the camera & sensor so that it can be processed
in future by software that hasn't got built-in details for that camera.

- Rights management metadata (name, copyright, website, etc) which will
get copied into derivatives (JPEGs, TIFFs, etc) by aware-software.

- Asset management metadata (keywords for the shoot, subject, etc),
which will also get copied.

- Previews of various sizes chosen by option, including a full-sized
JPEG preview generated using raw converter values (in particular, ACR
values) so that for many purposes further raw conversion isn't needed,
just extraction of the preview.

I don't believe today's raw files will be orphaned - there will be SOME
means of processing them in a decade or two, at SOME cost. The
advantage of DNG is that it will be supported in a decade or two with
the workflow and tools of YOUR choice, not just by SOME means.

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/xmp_dng.htm
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/profiles.htm

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/

On Oct 8, 3:48 pm, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)"
wrote:
[snip]
i'd say it's kinda risky to stick with DNG...format is relatively new, not
used very often and we don't know if it will stick. IF it will, there's
always a way to convert later, if not and someone would have all pics in DNG
it would be hard time to get a software who will read it, while i think it's
not a matter when using RAW, since almost all decent photo software reads
it.
I think it's best to wait for a while and see what happens...

When judging DNG, it is important to judge any alternatives by the same
criteria. Otherwise there is the risk of using a bad alternative
because of some (real or imagined) imperfection in DNG.

DNG is an older format (more than 2 years old) than the specific raw
files of most cameras on sale today (mostly less than 2 years old).
Don't be fooled by "CR2" or "NEF" - we know that most raw converters
don't process images just because they are "CR2s" or "NEFs", but
because they recognise the specific camera model, hence the delays in
supporting the 400D and D80. (That delay could have been avoided if
Canon and Nikon had supported DNG, of course).

I believe more DNGs are created every day than the raw files of ANY
camera model. That isn't because many cameras and digital backs use DNG
in-camera - several do, but they tend to be niche and minority models.
It is because so many photographers convert their original raw files
into DNG. (Since June 2005, I have converted from the memory card and
discarded the originals. Observation says that many other people do
likewise. Other people backup both the original raws and the DNGs).

Across this planet are lots of people with images in DNG format who are
ALSO coders! DNG has an open specification and an SDK. There is NO
chance that DNG files will be orphaned.

In summary, the main problems (not insurmountable) are lack of support
by Canon, Nikon, Capture One, and Bibble. Capture One will support DNG
in the next release. Canon and Nikon files can be converted to DNG by
not-Canon and not-Nikon software. So ... Bibble! Eric, Eric .... Please
get your act together!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/