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

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

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.

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.

"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

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

* 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

* 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

"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

* 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