What is Future of DNG File Format due to Shifts at Adobe

[bravozulu]

Is it likely that Adobe the creator of DNG may no longer support that format in its new 'cloud' array of products? (I just read The DAM Book on digital imagery and DNG really seemed like a the way of the future).

 

[Alpha Doug]

The DNG format from Adobe has been available for years. Adobe hoped it would catch on, and some of their rationale made some sense. But it is now years later, and folks have finally figured out that if you had a program that would handle the RAW format from your camera, that it will handle it in the future. It just never caught on. Some use it religiously. Others think it's just another added step in an already convoluted workflow. Adobe is very good at image manipulation. Workflow - not so much.

 

[bravozulu]

I asked about this because I'm a Nikon owner and was looking for a PP program more universal than Nikon Capture. At the moment, I'm sitting on the fence about investing the money and learning time for either Aperture of Lightroom. DNG seemed like a passport that would ensure workability with most software, and continue to do so on into the future.

 

[noirdesir]

bravozulu wrote:

I asked about this because I'm a Nikon owner and was looking for a PP program more universal than Nikon Capture. At the moment, I'm sitting on the fence about investing the money and learning time for either Aperture of Lightroom. DNG seemed like a passport that would ensure workability with most software, and continue to do so on into the future.

DNG serves two purposes:

1. It allows Adobe applications to store raw conversion instructions in the raw file, ie, all your editing decisions are reversible stored in the file. But that is only useful as long as you use Adobe applications, ie, LR or ACR. If you only use Nikon raw converters, NEF files fulfil the same purpose. But each system is locking you into one raw converter.
2. It gives niche camera manufacturers a file format that can be read by almost any raw converter without requiring explicit support from the software vendor (and gives the users of other niche cameras that have their own raw format and are not explicitly supported by the raw converter of choice the same chance to use the raw file, via Adobe's DNG Converter). However, raw conversion is not optimised in theses cases and colour might require some work to look good.

While (1) is useful if you stick with Adobe, it has nothing universal about it. (2) does not rely on Adobe for those cameras that save directly to DNG and otherwise only relies on the free DNG Converter that will also remain free.

 

[graybalanced]

bravozulu wrote:

DNG seemed like a passport that would ensure workability with most software, and continue to do so on into the future.

Whatever DNG is won't affect which software you edit in, so it shouldn't affect your decision as to what software to use.

DNG is a way to preserve the original camera raw data. It is not currently a way to preserve corrections to that data, so it doesn't mean you can edit in one program and see the same edits in another program. What it's intended to do is let a raw file be opened even if a program does not have support for that specific camera. The real benefits would be to relieve the burden for any company that currently has to reverse-engineer every single new camera that comes out, and for any user who is tired of waiting for their software to add support for the new camera they just bought. In theory if more cameras supported DNG, any software supporting DNG would already support it.

But that doesn't extend to editing. Once you edit with Aperture or Nikon Capture or Lightroom those edits are specific to that program since each company does things their own way, which means other apps can't read the edits, and DNG doesn't change that.

You'll still want to pick your editor based on what it does and whether it fits your workflow, but DNG isn't going to be a factor.

 

[bravozulu]

Interesting. I was under the assumption that DNG was sort of a wrapper or envelope that bundled the mosaic file + edits +a priview. And that it was being adopted not only by a few camera manufacturers, but sort of as a universal standard by other image edit programs. It seems I was imagining assets based on reading only one book on the subject.

Since I'm a Nikon shooter, I am a bit shy of Nikon software because they don't invest much time or energy to keep it fresh and advanced. But as to being on the fence, my hesitation is also due to the fact that I'm a Mac user, but don't at the moment have much faith in the future of Apple image software. In other words, Aperture.

This Cloud mandate from Adobe is bewildering to me.

 

[jberk]

Please consider signing this petition to Adobe:

Sign the Petition

Adobe Systems Incorporated: Eliminate the mandatory "creative cloud" subscription model.

www.change.org

 

[Alpha Doug]

Bravozulu,

You have been sitting on the fence for a very long time theorizing about all this stuff. Most of it you won't really "get" until you get a digital SLR, some kind of software, and start working with it. We can tell you all this stuff, but you won't really understand without actually using the equipment and the software. It's like sitting in a chair with a stick and some peddles trying to figure out how to fly a plane.

 

[graybalanced]

bravozulu wrote:

Interesting. I was under the assumption that DNG was sort of a wrapper or envelope that bundled the mosaic file + edits +a priview. And that it was being adopted not only by a few camera manufacturers, but sort of as a universal standard by other image edit programs.

DNG actually does all of that, but the catch is, there is no industry standard for edits. Even if two programs have a control called Exposure, they probably have different code that gives different results, so if you set -0.5 Exposure in one program and save as DNG, and open it in another program, what -0.5 Exposure produces in the other program might look totally different.

There is an industry standard for metadata, so if you enter keywords in one program and save as DNG chances are those keywords will be picked up by any other program that can open that DNG.

bravozulu wrote:

I'm a Mac user, but don't at the moment have much faith in the future of Apple image software. In other words, Aperture.

This Cloud mandate from Adobe is bewildering to me.

Yeah, it's not the best time. Apple and Adobe are both limiting their appeal to photographers these days in certain ways.

 

[noirdesir]

graybalanced wrote:

There is an industry standard for metadata, so if you enter keywords in one program and save as DNG chances are those keywords will be picked up by any other program that can open that DNG.

However, with a lot of programs you can also write back these metadata into the proprietary format raw files.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Not sure about the future of DNG, perhaps it'll go the way of JPG2000, which is a superior format to JPG, but for some reason never caught on. It's still around in some ways, but I've never seen a camera use the format.

Personally I never saw the point of DNG, the concept was good in trying to standardise Raw image format. However, the point of Raw images is that they are not standard, each Raw file format is unique to the design and capabilities of each individual camera model, and the sensor used in it. I'm not completely sure how DNG works, but surely there must be something lost if you change that file into something that is standardised.

With most software being able to open and edit from most Raw files, DNG never really did have a point. For sure it has a purpose on a temporary basis while you wait for software to be updated for a new camera model. Otherwise, as I see it, you open a Raw file in, say, Aperture or Lightroom, and it gets processed according to the information in that individual file. If it was standardised, there probably wouldn't be the ability to optimise the image for that camera model.

And of course, as others have said, it just introduces another step into the workflow. If your software is capable of opening the Raw files from your camera, is there any point?

 

[mpe]

DNG format was pointless even before shifts at Adobe.

If you want to protect your data, always store the data as captured by camera and final post processed picture. Never convert your data to any intermediate format. You can never get your original data back.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

mpe wrote:

DNG format was pointless even before shifts at Adobe.

If you want to protect your data, always store the data as captured by camera and final post processed picture. Never convert your data to any intermediate format. You can never get your original data back.

Well, you can if you've saved the master Raw files somewhere. Converting them to DNG does not destroy the originals, only you can do that manually.

 

[Conchita]

Yes, but a lot of people have been doing just exactly that, although I never understood why.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Conchita wrote:

Yes, but a lot of people have been doing just exactly that, although I never understood why.

I know, weird ain't it. It's liken to taking film photos and burning the negatives after producing a print.

 

[noirdesir]

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Conchita wrote:

Yes, but a lot of people have been doing just exactly that, although I never understood why.

I know, weird ain't it. It's liken to taking film photos and burning the negatives after producing a print.

More like cutting off the perforation around your negatives. I see no reason to believe that in ten years with, eg, Aperture 7 Nikon D70 raw files are supported but DNG files of those not (or vice versa).

Thus, if you are paranoid, you can store both NEF and DNG files, otherwise, I'd just go with whatever is less work (which is just sticking with NEFs).

 

[theswede #100093]

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Not sure about the future of DNG, perhaps it'll go the way of JPG2000, which is a superior format to JPG, but for some reason never caught on. It's still around in some ways, but I've never seen a camera use the format.

The main reason jpeg2000 hasn't caught on is that the compression ratio benefits in the general case are very small and the encoding/decoding engine has much higher computation power demands.

I'm not completely sure how DNG works, but surely there must be something lost if you change that file into something that is standardised.

If the camera uses a bayer array nothing is lost.

With most software being able to open and edit from most Raw files, DNG never really did have a point.

Very few image manipulation programs can open raw files. Those that can tend to rely on an external converter, like ACR or Ufraw to open the file for them. This is one thing adoption of DNG could change.

If it was standardised, there probably wouldn't be the ability to optimise the image for that camera model.

The camera model will be in a tag in the DNG file and the image can be optimized for it. There would be no change compared to how it is today.

And of course, as others have said, it just introduces another step into the workflow. If your software is capable of opening the Raw files from your camera, is there any point?

If the camera can save images in DNG right off the bat there is no extra step. Sadly the camera makers do not seem interested in this.

Jesper

 

[noirdesir]

theswede wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

With most [raw conversion] software being able to open and edit from most Raw files, DNG never really did have a point.

Very few image manipulation programs can open raw files. Those that can tend to rely on an external converter, like ACR or Ufraw to open the file for them. This is one thing adoption of DNG could change.

Any image manipulation application that can open DNG files (and actually uses the raw data and not the jpeg preview) (a) needs to be a raw converter and (b) should have profiles for the camera model in question. At best, cameras using DNG files saves you a roundtrip via the DNG converter, but apart from this there is zero advantage if a camera uses the DNG format for its raw files.

If the camera can save images in DNG right off the bat there is no extra step. Sadly the camera makers do not seem interested in this.

The question is whether most people really want to use raw files from an un-profiled camera.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

theswede wrote:

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Not sure about the future of DNG, perhaps it'll go the way of JPG2000, which is a superior format to JPG, but for some reason never caught on. It's still around in some ways, but I've never seen a camera use the format.

The main reason jpeg2000 hasn't caught on is that the compression ratio benefits in the general case are very small and the encoding/decoding engine has much higher computation power demands.

Hmm, that's not what I found when experimenting. JPG2000 images were noticeably better quality, and smaller. Even if they're not significantly smaller, surely an improvement in image quality is always worth having.

I'm not completely sure how DNG works, but surely there must be something lost if you change that file into something that is standardised.

If the camera uses a bayer array nothing is lost.

With most software being able to open and edit from most Raw files, DNG never really did have a point.

Very few image manipulation programs can open raw files. Those that can tend to rely on an external converter, like ACR or Ufraw to open the file for them. This is one thing adoption of DNG could change.

Well, all of the Apple apps, and the OS can open them natively, as they built the Raw converter into the OS. Similarly all Adobe apps can use ACR. For non-destructive editing to work, they must be able to open and display Raw image files natively. For sure, all normal bitmap editors will need to convert first.

If it was standardised, there probably wouldn't be the ability to optimise the image for that camera model.

The camera model will be in a tag in the DNG file and the image can be optimized for it. There would be no change compared to how it is today.

So why bother then?

And of course, as others have said, it just introduces another step into the workflow. If your software is capable of opening the Raw files from your camera, is there any point?

If the camera can save images in DNG right off the bat there is no extra step. Sadly the camera makers do not seem interested in this.

Ok, so you're still relying on the software being able to optimise processing based on the camera model tag, if that needs an update to achieve, what's the benefit? You might be able to open the image, and perhaps make some kind of adjustments on basic assumed settings, but it wouldn't be optimised. You'd not be much better off than you are now, as you'd still have to wait for a software update to be able to make use of optimised settings.

 

[graybalanced]

Andy Hewitt wrote:

Personally I never saw the point of DNG, the concept was good in trying to standardise Raw image format. However, the point of Raw images is that they are not standard, each Raw file format is unique to the design and capabilities of each individual camera model, and the sensor used in it. I'm not completely sure how DNG works, but surely there must be something lost if you change that file into something that is standardised.

I believe DNG is a lossless version of the original, but I could be wrong. I think the way it works is to standardize how the raw sensor data is formatted, not to standardize how the data is captured, what fields are in the data, or how the data is interpreted.

Andy Hewitt wrote:

With most software being able to open and edit from most Raw files, DNG never really did have a point.

The catch with that sentence is that the "ease and ubiquity" of most software being able to open most raw files is a huge illusion. The illusion is maintained by every single raw processor software company having a team of people dedicated to decoding proprietary raw files as new cameras roll out. How sustainable is this effort? So far all the important players seem dedicated to this, but as the number of cameras grows you kind of have to wonder. It would obviously free up engineering hours at every photo software company if all the hours spent figuring out every unique camera could be turned to something else. That could happen if cameras could save straight to DNG.

There is not much value to be seen in DNG as long as all we do is convert existing raw files to it. That's why nobody cares. The real value is if cameras could save straight to it, but until that happens everybody is going to continue to think there is no need, because of the silent development tax we're paying for all the raw format decoding that has to go on.

That's why I support the idea of DNG and I really want cameras to save straight to it, but at the same time I don't bother converting my existing files. The value is hidden and in the future, and when those two things are true, few people care about making it happen. This is true in tech, in politics, in social and environmental issues, etc. As long as everything seems fine on the surface, we prefer to think everything is going to continue to be fine, no matter what is really going on under the surface. It's been pointed out that there are already Kodak raw formats that Kodak no longer supports.