DNG or Not

I greatly hesitate to open this bag of worms again but really would like some advice. I've read probly every post on this board and others about DNG, sifted thru numerous other articles and studies on it and still end up at square one. Maybe it's just a fact of life that 1/2 of all photographers support DNG and the other 1/2 do not and i'll have to accept that and take my own side. I do not have the time or desire to spend months of my life doing an in-depth technical study into the matter. From what technical info i've perused so far it's a wash anyway... 1/2 say aye and 1/2 say nay.

So as a last resort i'd like to boil down all the blather into 2 deciding questions:

A) Is there any compelling reason why I should NOT use DNG?
B) Is there any compelling reason why I SHOULD use DNG?

------------
Scotty

Sedjwik said:

I greatly hesitate to open this bag of worms again but really would like some advice. I've read probly every post on this board and others about DNG, sifted thru numerous other articles and studies on it and still end up at square one. Maybe it's just a fact of life that 1/2 of all photographers support DNG and the other 1/2 do not and i'll have to accept that and take my own side. I do not have the time or desire to spend months of my life doing an in-depth technical study into the matter. From what technical info i've perused so far it's a wash anyway... 1/2 say aye and 1/2 say nay.

So as a last resort i'd like to boil down all the blather into 2 deciding questions:

A) Is there any compelling reason why I should NOT use DNG?

Click to expand...

No. And I'm one of the nay sayers

Sedjwik said:

B) Is there any compelling reason why I SHOULD use DNG?/

Click to expand...

Not really. If you like me use Color checker passport you'll have to convert at least one image to dng.

DNG will not in any way hurt your images or files. You'll lose some compatibility with manufacturers own software and you'll gain compatibility with some older software. You'll slow down your workflow a bit, but you can automate the entire process and do other things while the files are being converted.

The files I have converted ends with .dng now instead of .nef. That's the most significant difference

--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

I gain a significant compression benefit. My 35mb a850 raws go down to 19mb .dngs.
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/EricSL

I totally echo what echelon2004 said.

I'll add one other aspect that may be a feature for some people and a problem for others, but still not compelling either way: DNG files contain the XMP metadata.

There certainly is some convenience in not having to deal with sidecar XMP files, and in having the XMP metadata stored right inside the Raw (DNG) file.

On the other hand, it means that every time you change the metadata, you're changing the DNG file. That slows down the metadata update operation, it puts the DNG file at a tiny amount of risk, and it means that if you have backups of the DNG file, you need to update all of your backups every time you change the metadata.

If you basically set the metadata for a file just once, this isn't an issue. But if you're prone to redefining your keyword structures, or refining your filing system if you use a DAM program that stores a copy of the filing information into the DNG file, then this can be a nuisance.

Reasons to possibly not use DNG.

A very few software programs do not handle DNG files or handle them in less than optimal way. DxO Optical comes to mind.

Some purists do not like disturbing and recopying the file data every time they edit the raw DNG file and save it. This is the case with DNG. Other raw files with the correct raw file editing software use separate sidecar files to record changes and make no changes to the original raw file.

Reasons to use DNG. Adobe products handle them well and keep various metadata stored accurately. AND, this data will be passed on correctly to a tif or jpg file. Other raw files do not come out so well as to some metadata when final jpg or tif files is made by Adobe software. Also, if you have multiple camera brands, it is easier to adopt a work flow with one raw file type and software. Also, some photogs do not like to keep track of sidecar files because they may get lost and so editing is lost.

In summary, if you use mostly Adobe software for your raw file conversion and editing you may wish to lean toward DNG. If you use the camera brand software, maybe less need to go with DNG.

I have been using it for a few years. I primarily use Photomechanic, LightRoom and Photoshop. Photomechanic handles dng's very well and of course so do the adobe products.

As others have stated, not all software is able to use dng. I would guess that more do than don't. Even aperture can read them from what I remember. It doesn't save them to this file format, one of many reasons I don't use the program.

The smaller file size is of course nice, but I also like that there aren't any sidecars. It's a personal thing, but the sidecars file seem 'messy' to me....

I have done quite a few prints from dng files via photoshop, as well as have had a number of shots published in magazines. I see zero difference.

The long term concern is 'what if' of course. What if adobe goes under, bought out, etc... But, from my reading there is even less certainty that your NEF or CR2 files will be ready by canon/nikon down the road either.

It would be a nightmare for many if all of a sudden dng's weren't going to be readable and they all needed to be converted to some other format.

No downside on my end of things.
--
[email protected]
http://www.courtlevephoto.com

My answer to that is

( A ) No, &

( B ) Yes .. basically DNG is quite well supported, and not only Adobe, but pretty much all independent RAW developers .. which mean one is open to all kind of tools without the need to worry about specific ambiguity with the processing etc ...

--

• Franka -

For me, the compelling reason is so I don't have to upgrade to CS4. I just purchased a new camera that isn't supported in the CS3 version of ACR. By converting the RAW files to DNG, I can open them in ACR 4.6.

Jack

Tom Reynolds said:

Some purists do not like disturbing and recopying the file data every time they edit the raw DNG file and save it. This is the case with DNG.

Click to expand...

Is it?

Adobe typically write DNG files so that the XMP block is near the front, with plenty of spare space following it, which I believe is so that it can be overwritten after change without the rest of the file being written. (This also improves performance, of course).

I use LightRoom and it has "copy to DNG" built into the import routine (actually i need to see if that's still true in the 2.6 version), or it's quite an easy matter to convert the RAWs to DNG after the import... so this is really no big deal in my workflow.

I guess part of my desire to use DNG has to do with LR's use of the XMP sidecar files, which just seems a bit messy to me also, as someone else mentioned. As far as a substantive reason, however, that doesn't seem to hold much water. I'm not too concerned about corrupting an original raw file... i can't honestly say that's too much of a threat in this day and age.

I also like the idea of having a "standardized" file format... but as someone somewhere mentioned, that can't really come into its own until more (or any) cameras include native DNG output. I think that would push the whole issue of standardizing the format more into the mainstream.

I guess it still pretty much comes down to being a split decision... with the gamble being the unknown future of either DNG itself or your RAW files. Neither i guess is a matter of much import at the moment... and maybe the lone deciding factor is which method offers the easier (or necessary) workflow.

------------
Scotty

I believe that there is no other RAW software that will edit converted DNGs. They will only handle native DNG from camera.

Franka T.L. said:

My answer to that is

( A ) No, &

( B ) Yes .. basically DNG is quite well supported, and not only Adobe, but pretty much all independent RAW developers .. which mean one is open to all kind of tools without the need to worry about specific ambiguity with the processing etc ...

--

• Franka -

Click to expand...

There's no compelling reason either way.

Sedjwik said:

I greatly hesitate to open this bag of worms again but really would like some advice. I've read probly every post on this board and others about DNG, sifted thru numerous other articles and studies on it and still end up at square one. Maybe it's just a fact of life that 1/2 of all photographers support DNG and the other 1/2 do not and i'll have to accept that and take my own side. I do not have the time or desire to spend months of my life doing an in-depth technical study into the matter. From what technical info i've perused so far it's a wash anyway... 1/2 say aye and 1/2 say nay.

So as a last resort i'd like to boil down all the blather into 2 deciding questions:

A) Is there any compelling reason why I should NOT use DNG?
B) Is there any compelling reason why I SHOULD use DNG?

------------
Scotty
------------

Click to expand...

Sedjwik said:

I also like the idea of having a "standardized" file format... but as someone somewhere mentioned, that can't really come into its own until more (or any) cameras include native DNG output. I think that would push the whole issue of standardizing the format more into the mainstream.

Click to expand...

In the last 5 years, more camera models that write DNG in-camera have been launched than camera models writing any single other raw image format.

There were/are about 38 models that write DNG from about 12 manufacturers. Figures for NEF, CR2, or ORF, were/are in the low-20s each.

It is the format of choice for niche and some minority manufacturers. Most people have only heard of a few of them: Pentax, Leica, Samsung, Casio, Ricoh, etc. But if a manufacturer is making a 360-degree panorama camera+back (Seitz), or a spotting scope with a built in digital camera (Carl Zeiss), DNG is really their only way of getting support from lots of software products.

MichelBB said:

I believe that there is no other RAW software that will edit converted DNGs. They will only handle native DNG from camera.

Click to expand...

There are 100s of software products that will edit converted DNGs.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products.htm

Many, probably most, of them will edit DNGs from cameras they are otherwise unaware of. I have personally tested several such products, but gave up a long time ago because it was commonplace.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/dng_not_native.htm#examples

(Bibble appears to one of the few products left that will only process DNGs from the camera).

DNG is the lowest common denominator so features like Active-D with Nikon cameras is not going to be recognized or usable. In effect you give up at least 2 stops of DR with DNG. This applies to other camera specific features that are captured in RAW but not carried over into DNG.

All the software for converting RAW is backward compatible but for true keeper images I would save them as TIFF files if worried about future readibility. This is where the advantage lies with Nikon and Canon as they are more likely to still be in the camera business 20 years from now while no one really knows about Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Leica, and others.

Doug Pardee said:

There certainly is some convenience in not having to deal with sidecar XMP files, and in having the XMP metadata stored right inside the Raw (DNG) file.

Click to expand...

I think if you are not used to the xmp file concept then they can appear to be a little cumbersome or inconvenient but actually they are no bother at all and have their own advantages. They sit right there next to your RAW file. If for any reason you need to move your RAW files or copy them then it is just as easy to include the xmp file.

If you have your RAW files on two systems and need to transfer info from one to the other you don't need to transfer the whole DNG file. You just need to transfer the tiny xmp files.

People keep assuming that it's possible that your raw files will be unreadable within your lifetime due to some sudden change by the manufacturer.

That's unlikely enough to be impossible.

The proprietary software that comes with each camera will read the raw files from that camera.

Archive this software with your images.

Software reinstalls a lot faster than converting your files to dng.

calson said:

DNG is the lowest common denominator so features like Active-D with Nikon cameras is not going to be recognized or usable. In effect you give up at least 2 stops of DR with DNG. This applies to other camera specific features that are captured in RAW but not carried over into DNG.

All the software for converting RAW is backward compatible but for true keeper images I would save them as TIFF files if worried about future readibility. This is where the advantage lies with Nikon and Canon as they are more likely to still be in the camera business 20 years from now while no one really knows about Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, Leica, and others.

Click to expand...

Robert J. Gonzalez said:

People keep assuming that it's possible that your raw files will be unreadable within your lifetime due to some sudden change by the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

The problem is really "will your future software and workflow of choice handle today's raw images?"

How many people expect that their future software of choice will be their today's camera manufacturer's software?

calson said:

DNG is the lowest common denominator so features like Active-D with Nikon cameras is not going to be recognized or usable. In effect you give up at least 2 stops of DR with DNG. This applies to other camera specific features that are captured in RAW but not carried over into DNG.

Click to expand...

Data, including metadata. are carried over from NEF raw images to the DNG. Whether software uses them when processing a DNG file is another matter.

(I don't know if Active-D is such raw data).

When's the last time you needed to re-process raw files you shot last year let alone years ago?

And even if you did, how many files?

You shoot and process your images, then you move on.

You need a method of handling the occasional older file, you don't need a "workflow" for it.

ACR started as a plugin for photoshop 7.01 in August 02 and the current ACR still handles every raw file that ACR 1 handled as far as I can determine.

What's the basis for believing that older raw files will suddenly be excluded unless it's for some point and shoot that couldn't have been used professionally anyway.

And even if it comes to pass that your "future workflow" doesn't handle a file from an old camera you undoubtedly hadn't used or even owned in years, it's a much better solution to simply archive the software that handles it then it to convert gigabytes of images now on the off chance you might need one of them.

And you certainly don't need a "workflow" to handle a few files.

Barry Pearson said:

Robert J. Gonzalez said:

People keep assuming that it's possible that your raw files will be unreadable within your lifetime due to some sudden change by the manufacturer.

Click to expand...

The problem is really "will your future software and workflow of choice handle today's raw images?"

How many people expect that their future software of choice will be their today's camera manufacturer's software?

Click to expand...

What part of "archive the older program" didn't you understand?