Adobe DNG WHO & WHY

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by colorspace, Feb 28, 2015.

  1. colorspace macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    #1
    As I plan my move from Aperture (Que en Paz Descanses) to LR 5/6 I've had my curiosity peaked by the tidiness of possibly using Adobe's DNG file format (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative). Personally I would need to convert my Nikon NEFs to DNG, either during import or at some point afterwards...

    Seems to have some possible upsides, but from what I can tell adoption has been somewhat anemic....

    So any folks out there using DNG? If so why? What has been your experience like? Would you do it again? Tips/recommendations?

    THX
     
  2. HantaYo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #2
    I decided to convert all of my RAW files in aperture to DNG during my migration to Lightroom. Main impetus was to save hard drive space. Huge MISTAKE! I bougth DXO as well and it does not read DNG- unsupported format. Really no difference in files size as well. I decided to delete all the DNG files and import the RAW. Luckily I only had three months I lost of RAW files so I had to keep the DNG for those 3 months. Seems like other programs do not support DNG as well.
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    I played with DNG a few years ago, as it seemed like an answer to a problem. I then got into deep weeds when other apps were unable to read it, but they could read my RAW. Lesson learned.

    Oddly though, it seems best to use DNG with workflow using DXO (LR->DXO->LR) Round trip an image to DXO and send it back to LR as a DNG. I suppose I could use TIFF in that instance but I'm afraid the file size would be too big and chew up my limited space on my Mac.
     
  4. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #4
    I also leave raw files in their native format. I used DNG only for round trip testing with DXO.
     
  5. steveash macrumors 6502

    steveash

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    I've been using DNG for about 5 years since I bought a camera that wasn't yet supported by my RAW convertor. I found that the files for my cameras were about 20% smaller which saved me quite a bit of disk space. I also like the lack of sidecar files. I used the free to download Adobe DNG convertor to convert in bulk.

    DNG is great concept as a universal format but it hasn't seen much adoption among camera manufacturers. A pity because it seems like a logical progression for the industry.
     
  6. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #6
    My copy of DxO Optics Pro opens DNG just fine, and saves to it as well. And since the Mac can show DNG with its OS X RAW compatibility, I can open that same DNG in Pixelmator, QuickView, etc etc. Basically everything on my Mac, and I've got tons of image apps.

    Not sure what you did to do the conversion, or if you're using current software, but something is wrong with your picture, so to speak.

    I find it pretty easy to keep around my RAWs, but occasionally there are programs that can't read 'em (Affinity Photos, until recently eg). So I convert. You can include the original RAW, and avoid sidecar use. And as with DxOs workflow for LR it can mean you have a differently rendered included JPEG than what the camera gives you, which can be nice.
     
  7. colorspace thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    #7
    Steve

    Thanks for the reply -- the lack of sidecar files, not only for adjustments, "regular" metadata, but also for GPS location, was one of the reasons I asked.

    I completely agree that it would make sense to have a file format with a sort of "inviolable" untouched/negative partition as well as one able to hold the metadata and adjustments made. Too had neither Adobe nor some of the Open source/format folks seem to have been able to make a dent into this.




    ----------

    Rob,

    I assume you don't have on one of the very few cameras that can generate DNGs directly, so what app specifically are you using to generate your DNGs? Also, I though the original RAW file was always embedded in the DNG, is this not the case or is it just an option?

    Thx

     
  8. HantaYo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    #8
    Hmmm,

    With a DNG in DxO 10 I get "This image cannot be processed since it was taken with a camera that is not supported by this version of DxO". However it opens the RAW file fine. Interesting... Maybe the DNG version?
     
  9. skyhawkmatthew macrumors member

    skyhawkmatthew

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #9
    My current camera shoots DNG natively and I can't say I have noticed any change in behaviour of Aperture compared to the .NEF files I was using before that. Every other application I want to use the files in seems to work happily as well.
     
  10. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    Yep and that about sums up it for me too. They seem to render previews quicker too, which is nice.

    Mind you, I seem to be one of only a handful here that don't cherish their RAW files more than their children. So take my comments on surface value. :p
     
  11. Razeus macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #11
    DNG is a waste of time, unless it's your camera's native format.
     
  12. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    Agreed. The only use I have for it is it is a great way for a plugin like DXO to round trip an edited image back to LR.
     
  13. The Bad Guy macrumors 6502a

    The Bad Guy

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    Let's see.

    I use Adobe Lightroom for storage and edit my images in Adobe PhotoShop. Hmmm, you're right...seems downright silly to use Adobe DNG in this process. I'm sure it wouldn't work any better. :cool:
     
  14. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    Obviously in your case, it can make sense, up until the time you may wish to transition to a new product to manage your apps that is not DNG compatible. I'm not saying you shouldn't use DNG, just understand the potential risks.
     
  15. GBNova macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    #15
    Convert to DNG if you wish (I did for my better photos) just don't delete the native raw file in case you need it. After all don't we all want at least two copies of our best photos?
     
  16. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #16
    My camera creates ORF files not DNG. I have not noticed Canon or Nikon or anyone other than Leica doing DNG either. I know, all the other camera companies are missing out on an opportunity.

    All my editing tools like LR9, and PPS9 can all read ORF. I never use Photoshop since I use PPS9 for masking and layers, so I deleted Photoshop long ago. PPS9 delivers a layered editable PSD back to LR which LR can read just fine. A DNG conversion then it adds no extra value and slows the import processing. Plus I never had to worry about trying in the future to get my native ORF format exported out of a DNG envelope.
     
  17. Edge100 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 14, 2002
    Location:
    Where am I???
    #17
    Same here. Leica M-E.
     
  18. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #18
    I use .RW2, .ORG and .CR2 RAWS (Panny, Oly, Canon). And use LR and/or Adobe Camera Raw to generate DNGs. Dunno why DxO would choke on any DNG. I do note that when I use a new camera or lens DxO has to download the stuff it needs to process; maybe something happened with that?

    And at least with LR and other Adobe products you can save the original RAW file IN the DNG; note that this is different than the RAW data; it saves the whole file. Which makes for a ginormous DNG, but is rather handy if you wanna have both or send both or something. You use Adobe's free DNG Converter to extract the original RAW and poof, there's the .ORF or whatever.

    I find DNG most useful when you've gotta share RAW.

    Another benefit is the internal XMP instead of sidecars. If you have to make Finder copies of RAWs or move them in Finder it's nice not to have to remember to move the sidecars.

    Also, since the metadata is in the DNG it acts like metadata in JPEG or TIFF. That means that Spotlight indexes it. So eg if you keyword a RAW with "test" that keyword is only in the sidecar, and Spotlight can only find the sidecar (if at all; YMMV). But keyword a DNG with "test" and a Spotlight search on "test" will find it.
     
  19. MCAsan, Mar 4, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015

    MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #19
    try to get your native raw file exported from DNG. Unless you used Adobe DNG Converter with the option to embed the entire raw file into the DNG (making the DNG much larger), you can not get that raw file back out. So either do embedded raw files.....or......archive your original raw files after you use them to create DNG copies. In either case, could be lots of disk space needed.
     
  20. gnd macrumors 6502a

    gnd

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    At my cat's house
    #20
    Pentax cameras can record natively in DNG, at least all their DSLRs (APSC and MF).
     
  21. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #21
    True, I wonder what DSLR market percentage Pentex has. I think it is very small with Canon and Nikon continuing to dominate. In the mirrorless market, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji and the other major players stick with their native raw formats.
     
  22. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #22
    LR can also embed, BTW. Just for reference, my .ORF RAW was 16.28MB, the DNG from that 17.86 (I think I had embedded the fast load data and medium JPEG); no embedded JPEG and no fast load data shrunk that to 16.75. A 75% quality JPEG of that, by comparison, is 4.79MB.

    Not sure if other RAW formats converted to DNG would result in more savings.
     
  23. colorspace thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    #23
    Now these two really are useful.

     
  24. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #24
    I ignored DNG since the time Adobe came up with it and have been none the worse for wear.
     
  25. tomnavratil macrumors 6502a

    tomnavratil

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Location:
    Litovel, Czech Republic
    #25
    I'm a Nikon DSLR shooter so I keep everything in NEF as well rather than changing it. Works like a charm with Lr and also for storage.
     

Share This Page