Reading mode: Light Dark

DNG to NEF converter?

Go to last post
G

gordonf238

Leading Member
Messages
729
Reaction score
0
Location
Singapore, US
DXO Optics is vital for my interior photography for lens correction, but the geniuses at DXO decided to offer only TIFF or DNG export from their software (which makes importing the corrected files back into Aperture a pain), as little RAW-specific adjustments can be made to TIFF files.

So question, has anyone come across a DNG to NEF converter? Thanks a million guys.
--
http://www.michaelkormos.com
 
Format name: Nikon Electronic format
Extension: .nef
Mode: read

Format name: Digital negative
Extension: .dng
Mode: read

Format name: Tagged Image File Format
Extension: .tiff, .tif
Mode: read, write

--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
I don't use either, but can you not do the raw adjustments in aperture or capture first and export to DX0 as a final step?
 
Most of the corrections DxO does are much more effective if done as an integral part of the raw conversion (ie, the de-mosaicing). Thus, DxO only outputs rectilinear data (Tiff, jpeg, linear DNG). If you want to use these corrections you'll have to use DxO as your raw converter and thus cannot use any other software to do raw-specific adjustments.
gordonf238 said:
as little RAW-specific adjustments can be made to TIFF files.
Click to expand...
To be absolutely clear, you can only do the raw conversion once, either in DxO or in Aperture.

And to Illiah's comment:
gordonf238 said:
I'm afraid such a programme does not exist and doubt it will ever be
written.
Click to expand...
Even if somebody wrote such a program (re-creating raw data from rectilinear ones), it would be utterly pointless. The information that is 'lost' in the raw-conversion cannot be re-created.
Nikoneer said:
I don't use either, but can you not do the raw adjustments in
aperture or capture first and export to DX0 as a final step?
Click to expand...
See my first sentence.

Other posts about DxO only outputting linear DNGs:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1004&message=13744904&q=DxO+linear+DNG&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1017&message=18379747&q=DxO+linear+DNG&qf=m

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=13896550&q=DxO+linear+DNG&qf=m
 
Say I do all the adjustments in Aperture (levels, color, highlight recovery, etc.). Everything BUT cropping. I then export the file as a TIFF to DXO, and run geometric/distortion fix, exporting it again as TIFF.

Since I use Aperture not only for adjustments, but also to manage, store and back-up all client files, I am ultimately forced to re-import the file from DXO back into Aperture.

So now I end-up with two files in Aperture, and any future adjustment (be it levels, etc.) would force me to then run it through DXO and re-import it into Aperture before sending client revised images.

It's not very well thought out.

What I'm most puzzled with is the Highlights Recovery in Aperture, which can do wonders with the original NEFs, but once I bring-in 16-bit TIFFs from DXO, it seems to lose all leverage it has. Adjusting color temperature causes highlights to be easily blown and none of them can be recovered. I wonder whether DXO really does export TIFFs as 16-bit (my NEFs are all shot in 14-bit mode)..

Then again, this is all new. Who said anything is easy?
--
http://www.michaelkormos.com
 
gordonf238 said:
I then export the file as a TIFF to DXO,
and run geometric/distortion fix, exporting it again as TIFF.
Since I use Aperture not only for adjustments, but also to manage,
store and back-up all client files, I am ultimately forced to
re-import the file from DXO back into Aperture.
So now I end-up with two files in Aperture, and any future adjustment
(be it levels, etc.) would force me to then run it through DXO and
re-import it into Aperture before sending client revised images.
Click to expand...
If you run DxO on a tiff, most corrections will be noticeably less effective (distortion correction should still be effective but probably a slight cost of sharpness). If you mainly care about the distortion correction, PTlens will do this as well as an Aperture plugin (and you would just have to run again to update the result after doing additional adjustments in Aperture). PTlens comes pretty close to DxO (if DxO gets Tiffs as input).
But there is no way around the additional tiff at the moment.
gordonf238 said:
What I'm most puzzled with is the Highlights Recovery in Aperture,
which can do wonders with the original NEFs, but once I bring-in
16-bit TIFFs from DXO, it seems to lose all leverage it has.
Adjusting color temperature causes highlights to be easily blown and
none of them can be recovered.
Click to expand...
Whenever you do the raw conversion (which in the case of Aperture is at the moment of export or sent to plugin/editor), you bake in the raw conversion. Once you've done this you cannot go back. That is why non-destructive raw converters like Aperture or Lightroom are so much better than stand-alone converters, you don't have to bake-in the raw conversion until you export.
 
Not so - it's intended as a cross-platform PDF type of thing for the photography world and like PDF, is open & fully documented.
The battle is getting software manufacturers to fully utilise it.
 
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:
The battle is getting software manufacturers to fully utilise it.
Click to expand...
What for?
Click to expand...
All those camera manufacturers who don't offer raw conversion software of their own and thus don't need any special features in their raw files, could use it. This would avoid the chore of having to convert (re-format) them with Adobe's DNG converter for use in Applications like Aperture and its DNG-baseline 'mode'.
 
noirdesir said:
noirdesir said:
noirdesir said:
The battle is getting software manufacturers to fully utilise it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
noirdesir said:
noirdesir said:
What for?
Click to expand...
All those camera manufacturers who don't offer raw conversion
software of their own
Click to expand...
Can you list the companies that do not have raw converters under their brand?
noirdesir said:
This would avoid the chore of having
to convert (re-format) them with Adobe's DNG converter for use in
Click to expand...
Problem with RAW is akin to the problem with Etruscan language - easy to read, but only few words are known to mean something. DNG being derived from RAW inherits the same problem.

--
http://www.libraw.org/
 
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:
All those camera manufacturers who don't offer raw conversion
software of their own
Click to expand...
Can you list the companies that do not have raw converters under
their brand?
Click to expand...
I was about to write Ricoh when I thought better and asked Google. But apparently their raw converter is so bad that nobody uses it (this is paraphrasing a couple of search results). Maybe I should have phrased my answer differently, those camera manufacturers you use DNG as their raw format are those which don't see any benefits of defining their own raw format. So, the purpose for DNG is to give manufacturers without any ambition or interest of their own a template for their raw files. Nothing more, but also not nothing.

(Plus it fulfills the need for Adobe to have a format to store their raw conversion settings. But that relates to propriatory side of DNG which does not really have anything to do with the open-source side of it.)
Iliah Borg said:
Problem with RAW is akin to the problem with Etruscan language - easy
to read, but only few words are known to mean something. DNG being
derived from RAW inherits the same problem.
Click to expand...
As I said, DNG does not solve the RAW problem it just offers a template for manufacturers new to RAW game.
 
noirdesir said:
those camera manufacturers you use DNG as their raw format are those which don't see any benefits of defining their own raw format.
Click to expand...
They may not see any benefit of defining their own format but this does not mean that they are writing transparent universally understood files.

For example, Ricoh has an extensive and not fully understood Makernote in their DNG file.
Just because it's DNG doesn't mean it's "open".

Bill (visit me at http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/ )
 
bclaff said:
bclaff said:
those camera manufacturers you use DNG as their raw format are those which don't see any benefits of defining their own raw format.
Click to expand...
They may not see any benefit of defining their own format but this
does not mean that they are writing transparent universally
understood files.
For example, Ricoh has an extensive and not fully understood
Makernote in their DNG file.
Just because it's DNG doesn't mean it's "open".
Click to expand...
No, but it might give niche manufacturers (niche in respect to raw-producing cameras, like Ricoh) an easy way into applications like Aperture (Apple might not bother to support Ricoh's own raw format because they are too small). I don't think DNG is of too much use, but it fulfills certain niche uses. And Aperture does not seem to be bothered by that Makernote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top