If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
Been reading the excellent book "The DAM Book, Digital Asset
Management for Photographers" by Peter Krogh. He pretty strongly supports Adobe's DNG format over RAW files, although he's not bagging RAW, just putting a good case forward for DNG. If you don't want to read the book, there is much of it at this website and while it's a bit of a read, in this day and age I think it's important to at least skim through and have a basic understanding: http://www.dpbestflow.org/ I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. -- Troy Piggins |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:24:55 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote: Been reading the excellent book "The DAM Book, Digital Asset Management for Photographers" by Peter Krogh. He pretty strongly supports Adobe's DNG format over RAW files, although he's not bagging RAW, just putting a good case forward for DNG. If you don't want to read the book, there is much of it at this website and while it's a bit of a read, in this day and age I think it's important to at least skim through and have a basic understanding: http://www.dpbestflow.org/ I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. I shoot Nikon, so my RAW images are .NEF files. They are converted in Bridge to .DNG files when uploaded. They are still a RAW image format. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
On 2011-04-17 7:24 AM, Troy Piggins wrote:
Been reading the excellent book "The DAM Book, Digital Asset Management for Photographers" by Peter Krogh. He pretty strongly supports Adobe's DNG format over RAW files, although he's not bagging RAW, just putting a good case forward for DNG. If you don't want to read the book, there is much of it at this website and while it's a bit of a read, in this day and age I think it's important to at least skim through and have a basic understanding: http://www.dpbestflow.org/ I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. I've been using DNG exclusively since DNG came out and discard the raw. It does save space. I convert to DNG while loading from the card in Bridge. This allows re-naming, tagging a bit of other data while converting. So the raw is never stored on the computer at all. Once I delete the files on the card it's gone (well, I could do a card recovery at that point). Raw files from my camera are about 33 MB. With DNG they are 16 - 18 MB. There are no sidecars. If I ever get a MacAir with SSD or an iPad for travel, then compressing to DNG will save needed space for all the photos taken (not there yet). If you include the raw as-is in the DNG, then you have no space savings - on the contrary, depending how it's set up, could really use a lot more space. For either Canon or Nikon there is a downside, perhaps, in losing some of the "shot time" information when converting to DNG and discarding the raw. I don't recall the particulars, but you may want to check that out before committing to DNG. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:24:55 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote: I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. I shoot Nikon, so my RAW images are .NEF files. They are converted in Bridge to .DNG files when uploaded. They are still a RAW image format. DNG is an in camera option for the RAW output of my Pentax K20D, and the only RAW format of my Samsung GX10. However, my main chosen RAW conversion software, Bibble 5, considers them to be different, probably because of the differing luminance curves. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... Been reading the excellent book "The DAM Book, Digital Asset Management for Photographers" by Peter Krogh. He pretty strongly supports Adobe's DNG format over RAW files, although he's not bagging RAW, just putting a good case forward for DNG. DNG _is_ RAW. It's just a camera-mfr-independent file format for holding the raw data. If you don't want to read the book, there is much of it at this website and while it's a bit of a read, in this day and age I think it's important to at least skim through and have a basic understanding: http://www.dpbestflow.org/ I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I used DNG briefly while waiting for LR to add support for a new camera I had. Adobe can provide updates to their free DNG converter faster than they can update LR. But that's only an issue for folks trying to become road kill in the early adopter fast lane. The problem that DNG claims to solve is that many years from now, the raw-conversion software you want to use might not support your particular camera's RAW format. The problem that DNG causes is that if you want to try a different raw converter, it may not support DNG, so you'll be unhappy if you don't have your original files. I like Lightroom. A lot. But people keep claiming that such and such a program does a better job. With Canon, there are a lot of (vocalg) fans of Canon's raw converter, which has one of the worst UIs in the history of the peecee. Then there's Silkypix, Phase One, and DxO. Lots of choices. Dunno how many of them support DNG, or will continue to 20 years from now. I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. You must not be using Canong. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
On 4/17/2011 11:06 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
I like Lightroom. A lot. But people keep claiming that such and such a program does a better job. With Canon, there are a lot of (vocalg) fans of Canon's raw converter, which has one of the worst UIs in the history of the peecee. I think Canon's UI is klunky but OK. What is not OK is its treatment of highlights. Highlights that are not blown and look fine when I use Photoshop to read the raw file often look terrible when using Canon's DPP. On the flip side, DPP's lateral chromatic correction UI is better. What I do is look at the file (saved as raw) in Canon's ZoomBrowser, and decide whether I want to use DPP or Photoshop. The good news is that with raw, I can change my mind with no loss. Doug McDonald |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
* tony cooper wrote :
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:24:55 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote: [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 19 lines snipped |=---] sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. I shoot Nikon, so my RAW images are .NEF files. They are converted in Bridge to .DNG files when uploaded. They are still a RAW image format. Thanks mate. -- Troy Piggins |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
* Alan Browne wrote :
On 2011-04-17 7:24 AM, Troy Piggins wrote: [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 19 lines snipped |=---] sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. Don't know if I could completely do away with the RAW files and was thinking about including them in the DNG so they could be retrieved if wanted/needed. But that kinda negates the space saving feature. I've been using DNG exclusively since DNG came out and discard the raw. It does save space. I convert to DNG while loading from the card in Bridge. This allows re-naming, tagging a bit of other data while converting. So the raw is never stored on the computer at all. Once I delete the files on the card it's gone (well, I could do a card recovery at that point). Yeah, that's kinda what's making me a bit tentative at the moment. Losing the actual camera-captured RAW file. Kinda putting your eggs in one basket hoping that DNG will be around forever and always supported etc. In some ways, I think it's a safe bet. Adobe has the market with Photoshop, and more recently everyone has followed suit adopting PDF. So in many ways, I think DNG will win out and become a bit of a standard. But by the same token, I'm worried about losing the actual data my camera collected. Canon's CR2 format is best known by Canon, Adobe has just reverse-engineered the files to read and convert them. Raw files from my camera are about 33 MB. With DNG they are 16 - 18 MB. There are no sidecars. If I ever get a MacAir with SSD or an iPad for travel, then compressing to DNG will save needed space for all the photos taken (not there yet). If you include the raw as-is in the DNG, then you have no space savings - on the contrary, depending how it's set up, could really use a lot more space. For either Canon or Nikon there is a downside, perhaps, in losing some of the "shot time" information when converting to DNG and discarding the raw. I don't recall the particulars, but you may want to check that out before committing to DNG. Yes, see my above hesitations on completely losing the CR2 files. Thanks Alan. -- Troy Piggins |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... On 4/17/2011 11:06 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote: I like Lightroom. A lot. But people keep claiming that such and such a program does a better job. With Canon, there are a lot of (vocalg) fans of Canon's raw converter, which has one of the worst UIs in the history of the peecee. I think Canon's UI is klunky but OK. That klunky is pretty horrific given how nice LR is. What is not OK is its treatment of highlights. Highlights that are not blown and look fine when I use Photoshop to read the raw file often look terrible when using Canon's DPP. Yes. I haven't used a recent version of DPP, but there used to not be an equivalent to LR's "Exposure" slider, which allows you to convert different "windows" into the raw data. DPP used to have a "linear conversion" thing that would get the whole range (no blown highlights that weren't blown in raw, no crushed black not crushed in raw, and extreme low contrast). On the flip side, DPP's lateral chromatic correction UI is better. OK. I've been happy with CA correction in LR: it does what I need and does it well. But I've moved to lenses that don't have much CA (Zeiss 21/2.8, Canon 24 TSE II), so I just need a touch of CA adjustment some of the time. I have a Sigma 20/1.8 lying around here somewhere that desperately needs help with CA reduction... What I do is look at the file (saved as raw) in Canon's ZoomBrowser, and decide whether I want to use DPP or Photoshop. The good news is that with raw, I can change my mind with no loss. Yep. I'm more worried about maybe wanting to work with one of the others. I'm not sure I'm happy with sharpening in the latest version of LR: it tends to aggravate noise sooner than I'd expect. I tend to oversharpen, since I like textures brought out more than is perhaps reasonable, and I'd like a very different sharpening algorithm: one that doesn't touch the high contrast edges and only sharpens surfaces. But doesn't sharpen noise. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DNG - anyone using it instead of RAW?
* David J. Littleboy wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message ... Been reading the excellent book "The DAM Book, Digital Asset Management for Photographers" by Peter Krogh. He pretty strongly supports Adobe's DNG format over RAW files, although he's not bagging RAW, just putting a good case forward for DNG. DNG _is_ RAW. It's just a camera-mfr-independent file format for holding the raw data. In some ways, yes. But it's actually more than that. It's more of a RAW file container, because it can contain RAW data but also the sidecar information from editing, multiple previews etc as well. If you don't want to read the book, there is much of it at this website and while it's a bit of a read, in this day and age I think it's important to at least skim through and have a basic understanding: http://www.dpbestflow.org/ I'm wondering what your thoughts are? Anyone here using it? I used DNG briefly while waiting for LR to add support for a new camera I had. Adobe can provide updates to their free DNG converter faster than they can update LR. But that's only an issue for folks trying to become road kill in the early adopter fast lane. The problem that DNG claims to solve is that many years from now, the raw-conversion software you want to use might not support your particular camera's RAW format. The problem that DNG causes is that if you want to try a different raw converter, it may not support DNG, so you'll be unhappy if you don't have your original files. I like Lightroom. A lot. But people keep claiming that such and such a program does a better job. With Canon, there are a lot of (vocalg) fans of Canon's raw converter, which has one of the worst UIs in the history of the peecee. Then there's Silkypix, Phase One, and DxO. Lots of choices. Dunno how many of them support DNG, or will continue to 20 years from now. I think I'll be sticking with LR for quite some time. Finding I'm getting better at editing less because it's right in-camera more these days. I rarely use PhotoShop now, just for the very intensive astrophotography processing. If I need to edit an image in PS these days, it's probably because I really stuffed it at image capture time and I'll likely not really be happy with the shot anyway. What a snob, eh? I am using Lightroom pretty heavily these days and plan to continue with it for a long time. It does much/most of the PIEWare functions, I love working non-destructively with the RAW files. Just not sure if I should convert everything to DNG. I like the potential to have everything in the same file, no sidecar files etc. Also like the lossless compression, disk space saving possibilities. You must not be using Canong. I am using Canon. -- Troy Piggins |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|