Call for DNG support from camera manufacturers Locked

Started Nov 8, 2008 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
sakaasa Regular Member • Posts: 396
Re: I have to correct you right away

sir_bazz wrote:

cityphotographer wrote:

right now (and I mean right now) if you want to use the raws taken by
a 5D Mark II you need to buy an upgrade to your current version of
Photoshop and ACR.

You still don't get it do you

If the 5D MkII could shoot DNG then you wouldn't need to upgrade you
current version of PS or ACR.

sir_bazz wrote:

cityphotographer wrote:

right now (and I mean right now) if you want to use the raws taken by
a 5D Mark II you need to buy an upgrade to your current version of
Photoshop and ACR.

You still don't get it do you

If the 5D MkII could shoot DNG then you wouldn't need to upgrade you
current version of PS or ACR.

Not directed at sir_bazz, even though I am using his statement as a springboard:

We shoot Nikon D3s and use the camera manufacturer's software for rendering and processing NEF files. It actually does a better job than Adobe's RAW convertor and we can decide if and when we want to upgrade the Design Suite, Photoshop and Lightroom, no matter when we buy a camera. I don't yet see using third party software for RAW files as being a benefit.

Adobe already has DNG, and as they have repeatedly said, those photographers who don't want to upgrade their Adobe software, can use the DNG convertor when their new camera is not supported by ACR or LR.

I see RAW conversion software as being an extension of my camera, not a prelude to pixel editing. Nikon software provides the possibility to alter my camera settings, and make other global adjustments where the Nikon software will re-render the sensor data and color information based on the adjusted settings. No third party software can offer this. DNG will not offer this. The newer Nikon cameras include an ExSpeed processor that will render the NEF and save the file as a JPEG or TIFF image (out of camera). Nikon's Capture NX2 is currently performing the job of the ExSpeed processor in the camera when I render NEF files on a computer.

It is not so simple as to say "Nikon can put their maker notes in the DNG". There is software development costs and changes with DNG that will be higher. Costs get passed on to users. Let Adobe use DNG - it works for them as intended. I see no real benefit to DNG as a universal format. I prefer to stay with Nikon NEF format and the manufacturer's software.

That does not say that I am against a standard. I just don't agree that it should be built on DNG. However, no third party software will ever be able to completely render an NEF in the same way Nikon CNX2 does today. Adding the maker notes to the DNG doesn't make a good argument. If Nikon disappeared, no other manufacturer would not be able to read the maker notes or use Nikon's alogrithms. So the DNG, as it is proposed, would be of no help.

I prefer to support the camera manufacturers with regard to their providing a RAW convertor as an extention of the camera. I really don't see them as the bad guys, but as manufacturers competing in the market place and providing their users with a quality product. What I do understand is that DNG would save third parties, like Adobe, the time and cost of decoding and adding new cameras to their software. In other words, third party software might be cheaper (doubtful), but the cameras probably would not be.

In my experience with standards, products will be made to comply with a specific version of a standard. Since standards evolve and change, it can be anticipated that a DNG file of today will not be the DNG file of 2020. It just isn't as simple as "adopt the DNG and your digital negatives are safe forever".

-- hide signature --

saronann

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow