Adobe DNG - Revisited

Started Aug 15, 2012 | Discussions thread
Jim Hess
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,689
Like?
Re: Adobe DNG - Revisited
In reply to soloryb, Aug 21, 2012

soloryb wrote:

You are obviously confusing a DNG converted file with a lossy DNG converted one. These are two different file formats. A RAW propitiatory file will edit exactly the same as its DNG conversion. Lossy DNG, however, is a new option that you can choose, and it does indeed reduce and interpolate the color and tonal data as the file size shrinks. There's no getting around that, you do lose data with a lossy DNG conversion. However, as I stated before, I couldn't actually see any differences at all when editing a RAW, DNG, or lossy DNG shot using Lightroom. I have seen comments on an Adobe forum stating that others have seen a difference between editing a RAW or DNG compared to a lossy DNG. In fact, it was such comments that spurred me to try it myself - something I suggest that you do.

No, I am not confusing the formats. If you read my original statement, I indicated that if you used compressed (lossy) DNG then the file no longer contains raw image data. I just don't see any real benefit to converting to DNG. IF a raw format isn't supported in the future, it will be because no one is using it anymore. And if that's the case, I don't see that there will be a need for DNG either. I think it's a false safety net. But, as you say, I'm entitled to my opinion. I don't believe anybody is right or wrong in this situation. I don't like DNG, you do.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow