Reading mode: Light Dark

Better DNG processing or RAW.

Go to last post
Aleo Veuliah

Aleo Veuliah

Veteran Member
Messages
14,768
Solutions
6
Reaction score
3,269
Location
Lisbon / Lisboa, PT
I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage.
  • This picture is cropped and taken with the 45-200mm at 200mm with no tripod.



DNG JPG
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site
 

Attachments

  • 2446262.jpg
    2446262.jpg
    141.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Solution
T
I am certainly no expert but I must say that although this subject is important, some of the replies are very confusing to me. To my humble understanding both RAW and the DNG files are lossless so any manipulation will give the same result. Comparing jpg and DNG corresponds to comparing losses in a jpg file with a lossless file.

Hence from an image quality point of view, it doesn't matter whether you save as RAW or DNG. I save as DNG in Lightroom and discard the RAW originals because I believe that DNG files are more universal and therefore more likely to be readable in 20 years. But that's a matter of taste.

Maybe I am wrong but I would certainly appreciate to be corrected if that is the case!
Aleo Veuliah said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?
Click to expand...
Changes made to the image settings are stored within the DNG file itself, not in a sidecar XMP file (unless you write-lock the DNG file to force an XMP file, fraught with its own problems in metadata editing / labeling), which becomes a problem backing up processing settings.
 
Chez Wimpy said:
Chez Wimpy wrote:
Chez Wimpy said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?
Click to expand...
Changes made to the image settings are stored within the DNG file itself, not in a sidecar XMP file (unless you write-lock the DNG file to force an XMP file, fraught with its own problems in metadata editing / labeling), which becomes a problem backing up processing settings.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not an expert on the differences, and can only speak from my own experiences.

Adobe made the DNG format to be open to whoever and to sort of be universal. So far only a few camera manufacturers have used it natively, Some fairly popular software doesn't recognize it (such as Corel's products) and it has gone through a couple of changes. The changes I "think" were mostly because of included lens data etc. in some cameras...that is now included in compact form in the DNG files in regard to the later versions of ACR. The DNG's that are compatible with the older versions of ACR require a different encoding (linear?) and come out really large. Someone with a more technical view could explain better than I as to why. So, so much for 'total' compatibility. However the files can be still compatible, to Adobe's credit...back through most versions of ACR that I'm aware of...just that depending on which ACR version the file size will vary greatly, to maintain compatability.

I've found none, or no perceptible difference to my eye, in processing from Raw, or DNG. Since I have an older version of Photoshop, my manual focus lenses don't need the linear processing...I convert to DNG since my version of ACR recognizes those at a small file size. My native M4/3 lenses require linear processing to be compatible (around 48mb from a 12mp sensor), so the file sizes end up as temporary files...until processed...in my older Photoshop. My version of Lightroom recognizes my cameras in native files, so the file sizes can be small in DNG.

I've found another trick that I'm investigating, for users of editing programs that aren't updated frequently. Using Fastone Image Viewer (which seems to update new cameras often), I copy the Raw file to the clipboard, create a "New" file the same size in Photoshop (or other editor) and then paste the file into the newly created one, thereby eliminating the need for an intermediate Tiff. It sounds somewhat convoluted, but actually is quite simple...especially if made into an "action" (which I haven't done yet). This works for some files that don't need much in the way of lens correction, such as the Sigma 19 (since it is telecentric from all I've read) and works OK for non critical uses such as some landscapes, with other lenses.

The reason I've found out some of this stuff, is that I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to run on Adobe's upgrade treadmill for the rest of my life.

Mostly I'm now using Corel's (formerly Bibble's) Aftershot Pro for Raw processing, in conjunction with both Photoshop, and Paintshop Pro. It works pretty well for me.
 
Last edited:
Chez Wimpy said:
Chez Wimpy wrote:
Chez Wimpy said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?
Click to expand...
Changes made to the image settings are stored within the DNG file itself, not in a sidecar XMP file (unless you write-lock the DNG file to force an XMP file, fraught with its own problems in metadata editing / labeling), which becomes a problem backing up processing settings.
Click to expand...
 
Aleo Veuliah said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage.
  • This picture is cropped and taken with the 45-200mm at 200mm with no tripod.



DNG JPG
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site
Click to expand...
Not much RGB channels to play here. It's more on shadow, contrast and highlights so I don't see difference in using native RAW or DNG, more on which editing software you are using now. Adobe supports both but some software needs latest drivers for DNG or even your camera raw file.

--
reygon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...
 
Aleo Veuliah said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage
Click to expand...
By no means an expert but have used DNG converter and DNG profile editor.

The advantage (to me, and probably nobody else on this forum) was the ability to converter Sigma SD10 raw files to something that can have profiles in ACR. (the SD10 only outputs raw, not jpegs, and ACR 5.4 will not show any profiles other than "embedded"). And there you have it - you can make your own profiles with a lot of faffing around.

It's all too much trouble for me, extra steps in the workflow are not welcome for a hobbyist like myself.

The early promise of a universal open-source format does seem to have faded since.
 
I'm less sure my growing collection of ORFs (Olympus Raw Format) will be. I see DNG as a means of future proofing my archives.

Mind, I still process with DxO directly from the ORFs. But I'm planning on doing a batch conversion of the keepers to DNG for permanent storage.
 
Last edited:
Sanpaku said:
Sanpaku wrote:

I'm less sure my growing collection of ORFs (Olympus Raw Format) will be. I see DNG as a means of future proofing my archives.

Mind, I still process with DxO directly from the ORFs. But I'm planning on doing a batch conversion of the keepers to DNG for permanent storage.
Click to expand...
Make that 50 years. Most softwares and OS are backward compatible (e.g. My 8 years old PEF Pentax files are readily accessible using Lightroom and even Mac finder displays its thumbnail (without enforce user conversion) when browsing directly from the hard drive :) ). By that time (20 years from now) 3D pictures could be the standard or new standard and we'll look at our "old" photos less ;)
 
Last edited:
Aleo Veuliah said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage.
Click to expand...
No advantage over processing with an Adobe processing application that is already compatible with the manufacturer's RAW image-files from a particular camera. Any possible disadvantages are unclear.

In some cases, it has been alleged that Adobe's DNG conversion has ignored and failed to include certain information contained within RAW image-file meta-data where it comes to the RAWs produced by some camera models. Whether that image-file meta-data is important to the operation of Adobe processing applications themselves is unclear (and probably not likely).

Sometimes DNGs can be smaller in byte-size than the original manufacturer's RAW image-files.

Those who worry about future compatability of particular manufacturer's RAW image-files with Adobe processing applications evidently also worry that the Adobe DNG Converters of today would (also, possibly) not be compatible with future computer operating systems - because it seems that those same Adobe DNG Converters could be used at a later time to convert particular manufacturer's RAW image-files to DNG format as a solution for such potential compatibility problems.

Since Adobe is not the only developer of RAW processing applications - and because one does not know whether other RAW processing application will (or will not) accept DNGs as input - it makes no sense (and seems to me to be a very unwise idea) to convert original manufacturer's RAW image-files to DNGs and subsequently delete the original manufacturer's RAW image-files.
 
Last edited:
Lights said:
Lights wrote:

I'm not an expert on the differences, and can only speak from my own experiences.

Adobe made the DNG format to be open to whoever and to sort of be universal. So far only a few camera manufacturers have used it natively, Some fairly popular software doesn't recognize it (such as Corel's products) and it has gone through a couple of changes. The changes I "think" were mostly because of included lens data etc. in some cameras...that is now included in compact form in the DNG files in regard to the later versions of ACR. The DNG's that are compatible with the older versions of ACR require a different encoding (linear?) and come out really large. Someone with a more technical view could explain better than I as to why. So, so much for 'total' compatibility. However the files can be still compatible, to Adobe's credit...back through most versions of ACR that I'm aware of...just that depending on which ACR version the file size will vary greatly, to maintain compatability.

I've found none, or no perceptible difference to my eye, in processing from Raw, or DNG. Since I have an older version of Photoshop, my manual focus lenses don't need the linear processing...I convert to DNG since my version of ACR recognizes those at a small file size. My native M4/3 lenses require linear processing to be compatible (around 48mb from a 12mp sensor), so the file sizes end up as temporary files...until processed...in my older Photoshop. My version of Lightroom recognizes my cameras in native files, so the file sizes can be small in DNG.

I've found another trick that I'm investigating, for users of editing programs that aren't updated frequently. Using Fastone Image Viewer (which seems to update new cameras often), I copy the Raw file to the clipboard, create a "New" file the same size in Photoshop (or other editor) and then paste the file into the newly created one, thereby eliminating the need for an intermediate Tiff. It sounds somewhat convoluted, but actually is quite simple...especially if made into an "action" (which I haven't done yet). This works for some files that don't need much in the way of lens correction, such as the Sigma 19 (since it is telecentric from all I've read) and works OK for non critical uses such as some landscapes, with other lenses.

The reason I've found out some of this stuff, is that I'm a cheapskate who doesn't want to run on Adobe's upgrade treadmill for the rest of my life.

Mostly I'm now using Corel's (formerly Bibble's) Aftershot Pro for Raw processing, in conjunction with both Photoshop, and Paintshop Pro. It works pretty well for me.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
reygon said:
reygon wrote:
reygon said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage.
  • This picture is cropped and taken with the 45-200mm at 200mm with no tripod.



DNG JPG
--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.
If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.
Aleo Photo Site
Click to expand...
Not much RGB channels to play here. It's more on shadow, contrast and highlights so I don't see difference in using native RAW or DNG, more on which editing software you are using now. Adobe supports both but some software needs latest drivers for DNG or even your camera raw file.

--
reygon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...
Click to expand...
Yes, I thing I am going to continue to use just RAW, but is good to read the opinions here, I was in doubt with DNG.


--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.


Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.


If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.


Imagination is more important than knowledge.


God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.


Aleo Photo Site
 
xpatUSA said:
xpatUSA wrote:
xpatUSA said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage
Click to expand...
By no means an expert but have used DNG converter and DNG profile editor.

The advantage (to me, and probably nobody else on this forum) was the ability to converter Sigma SD10 raw files to something that can have profiles in ACR. (the SD10 only outputs raw, not jpegs, and ACR 5.4 will not show any profiles other than "embedded"). And there you have it - you can make your own profiles with a lot of faffing around.

It's all too much trouble for me, extra steps in the workflow are not welcome for a hobbyist like myself.

The early promise of a universal open-source format does seem to have faded since.
Click to expand...
 
Detail Man said:
Detail Man wrote:
Detail Man said:
Aleo Veuliah wrote:

I am wondering what is best and if any advantages of processing a DNG instead of a RAW (maybe TIFF is better), I download Adobe DNG converter and made this picture converting the RAW to DNG and them have processed in ACR. I have not notice any better quality or I am unaware of it ?

If anyone is an expert on this please tell if process from a DNG have any advantage.
Click to expand...
No advantage over processing with an Adobe processing application that is already compatible with the manufacturer's RAW image-files from a particular camera. Any possible disadvantages are unclear.

In some cases, it has been alleged that Adobe's DNG conversion has ignored and failed to include certain information contained within RAW image-file meta-data where it comes to the RAWs produced by some camera models. Whether that image-file meta-data is important to the operation of Adobe processing applications themselves is unclear (and probably not likely).

Sometimes DNGs can be smaller in byte-size than the original manufacturer's RAW image-files.

Those who worry about future compatability of particular manufacturer's RAW image-files with Adobe processing applications evidently also worry that the Adobe DNG Converters of today would (also, possibly) not be compatible with future computer operating systems - because it seems that those same Adobe DNG Converters could be used at a later time to convert particular manufacturer's RAW image-files to DNG format as a solution for such potential compatibility problems.

Since Adobe is not the only developer of RAW processing applications - and because one does not know whether other RAW processing application will (or will not) accept DNGs as input - it makes no sense (and seems to me to be a very unwise idea) to convert original manufacturer's RAW image-files to DNGs and subsequently delete the original manufacturer's RAW image-files.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I think this the answer for now. I am completely clarified. I am going to continue to use RAW for processing and some JPG.
 
Sanpaku said:
Sanpaku wrote:

I'm less sure my growing collection of ORFs (Olympus Raw Format) will be. I see DNG as a means of future proofing my archives.

Mind, I still process with DxO directly from the ORFs. But I'm planning on doing a batch conversion of the keepers to DNG for permanent storage.
Click to expand...
Well that is an advantage to consider to the best pictures. Converting them into DNG just as a Backup.
 
Lights said:
Lights wrote:

I could see where that would be somewhat "unhandy" especially if wanting to create various non destructive versions of the same file (in Lightroom?), if I'm understanding correctly? Haven't tried it yet on DNG's from within Lightroom. To keep changing to "read only"? generating a new XMP with each version?
Click to expand...
The main problem is that I backup the raw files of keepers "for all time" which means having a unique file fingerprint, unchanging, across several forms of media (RAID, offsite, and DVD/BluRay). XMP's makes it very easy to keep a (very small) living archive of changes in "the cloud" that survives multiple system upgrades/across continents, and gives a starting point for revisiting important images in the future. The original: burn it and forget it, yet my editing starts from wherever I left off.
 
I've used DNG for some years although I'm no longer doing so. I can see no difference whatsoever in processing between DNG and ORF. I simply stopped using it as I no longer saw any real advantage (I had thought it might be more 'future safe').

Frank
 
I am not sure about RAW processing since my editor(Acdsee) doesn’t support the GH3 yet. However, here is the out of camera JPG with a little processing and then the same DNG file with similar processing.



800mm F4.0 telescope











JPG









DNG



--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
www.youtube.com

LearningFast

Ever search YouTube for "How To" videos but they always take WAY too long to explain what you are looking for? This channel has Instructional videos that convey the information as fast as possible. The videos move fast. They are designed for people who know what they are trying to find out about...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

GH3 Tips and Tricks

GH2 Setup Walk through

vimeo.com

mpgxsvcd

mpgxsvcd is a member of Vimeo, the home for high quality videos and the people who love them.
vimeo.com vimeo.com

GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
 

Attachments

  • 2446910.jpg
    2446910.jpg
    3.9 MB · Views: 0
  • 2446911.jpg
    2446911.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 0
FrankyM said:
FrankyM wrote:

I've used DNG for some years although I'm no longer doing so. I can see no difference whatsoever in processing between DNG and ORF. I simply stopped using it as I no longer saw any real advantage (I had thought it might be more 'future safe').

Frank
Click to expand...
Thank you, I will use DNG now only for backups.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
mpgxsvcd wrote:

I am not sure about RAW processing since my editor(Acdsee) doesn’t support the GH3 yet. However, here is the out of camera JPG with a little processing and then the same DNG file with similar processing.

800mm F4.0 telescope






JPG




DNG

--
GH3, Hacked GH2, and Full Spectrum GF1 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
GH3 Tips and Tricks
GH2 Setup Walk through
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GH3, GH2, GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums
Click to expand...
Really thank you for this comparison, the JPG looks better. It was very useful to make some conclusions.


--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.


Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.


If plan A doesn't work, the alphabet has 25 more letters, keep calm.


Imagination is more important than knowledge.


God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.


Aleo Photo Site
 
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