Anyone using DNG?

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
retained?

My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
will be safe.

Comments?

Thanks,
Greg

G.T. wrote:

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs. Adobe says the
compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether all info is
retained?

My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
will be safe.

I use it to reduce file size and make what I think will be a better
supported archive for future use. My Nikon D70 files lose a few odd ends
in the EXIF data, that is common for some of the shooting information to
be in a non-standard format and no other program can recover it all
either. I forget what exactly, do a comparison & check for yourself.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net
Triteleia Natives
http://www.triteleia.com
(415) 722-6037

G.T. wrote:

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel
XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs.

I convert my NEFs to DNG after they come off the camera. The files are
smaller (more like 50% for me), not proprietary, and I don't have to install
Nikon's crappy software to use them in things like iView MediaPro.

I delete the NEFs after conversion.

Adobe says the compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether
all info is retained?

Yes, the compression is lossless.

--
Jeremy |

"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
G.T. wrote:

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it
out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my
Rebel
XT RAW files are 75% the size of the original RAWs.

I convert my NEFs to DNG after they come off the camera. The files are
smaller (more like 50% for me), not proprietary, and I don't have to
install
Nikon's crappy software to use them in things like iView MediaPro.

I delete the NEFs after conversion.

So you're completely on-board with DNG. I was wondering who has enough
faith in the format to get rid of their originals. I definitely like the
idea of a standard RAW format and the smaller file size is a bonus. And it
looks like DNG is gaining at least a little traction with 3rd party RAW
converters.

Greg

G.T. wrote:

I delete the NEFs after conversion.

So you're completely on-board with DNG. I was wondering who has enough
faith in the format to get rid of their originals. I definitely like the
idea of a standard RAW format and the smaller file size is a bonus.

Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be able
to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon SDK)
is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running Nikon's
worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
my system.

(And Nikon Capture, well, no thanks -- it sucks very badly, and it installs
a frigging *kernel module*. No, Nikon, you don't get to run in kernel space
on my system, thank you very much, especially when the only purpose for doing
so is copy protection. And especially when you install it in secret.)

And yes, despite Adobe being a huge, faceless corporation, I trust them a
hell of a lot more than I trust Nikon with my files at this point. No
matter how slow the acceptance of DNG may be so far, the fact that it's
non-proprietary makes me a lot more comfortable. And since Nikon's
software is worse than useless, not using a format that software can use
is no loss at all.

--
Jeremy |

In article ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be able
to preview in iView MediaPro (and whatever other software uses the Nikon SDK)
is a big bonus, considering that even installing and never running Nikon's
worthless excuse for bundled software silently does things to your system
configuration files and runs an invisible background process all the time
without even telling you. You can reverse the damage (if you know what
you're doing in the deep innards of system files), but I'd rather not
install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward
my system.

Such as, say, Adobe? One of the things I really, *really* dislike about
Photoshop Elements 3.0 is that it goes ahead and installs an alert listener
that insists on popping up and looking at your compact flash cards when you
plug one in to the system. No options during the install - it just does it.

G.T. wrote:
"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message

[snip]

So you're completely on-board with DNG. I was wondering who has enough
faith in the format to get rid of their originals. I definitely like the
idea of a standard RAW format and the smaller file size is a bonus. And it
looks like DNG is gaining at least a little traction with 3rd party RAW
converters.

I convert directly from the card to the PC, so my original PEFs never
get onto the PC. Once I have copied the DNGs to a second place, and
have checked the 2nd copy in Bridge to ensure that the conversion has
worked, I reformat the card in the camera.

I use ACR so I am not inconvenienced by Raw converters that don't
accept DNGs, but obviously I want to see all Raw-handling software
catering for DNG as well. At the moment there are about 35 or more
non-Adobe products that handle DNG, of which most are viewers and image
managers rather than Raw converters. The process of adoption by all
products is slow (but steady), and will take years, so some people
still need to retain their original files, or not use DNG at all.

My original main motivation was the smaller sizes. (I started using DNG
about 2 weeks after it was launched, in fact 10 months ago today!) Now,
the fact that ACR 3.1 can store its settings in the DNG file is another
advantage, because it keeps everything together.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

"G.T." spake:

Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it out
last night and really like the fact that the files converted from my Rebel

Yes, exclusively. My workflow will often have me backup the RAWs right
after dumping my flash cards (my "you made a backup, right?" copy), and
then convert to DNG. I tried out Nikon Capture during the trial period and
simply don't need to waste money or precious heartbeats on that level of
tweaking. Adobe's plugin is quite streamlined, and with the sidecar files
I feel quite comfortable sitting down to plow through 400 images, each one
getting the custom treatment.

Adobe says the compression is lossless, does anyone know for sure whether
all info is retained?

1) The original RAW can be embedded if you are really paranoid.
2) The compression is lossless. (The very nature of RAW data means you
can't cut corners.)
3) They have already established that NEF (and likely other formats,
because hey, why not?) has encrypted data, and they are quite content to
leave said data encrypted. Essentially Nikon software will handle Nikon
RAW the best, that's a given. Standard stuff like IPTC and EXIF should be
free and clear and preserved properly. Adobe is keeping to its mission
statement and extending the olive branch to all companies, AFAIK.

My current workflow is Canon DPP to Photoshop CS but I wouldn't mind
switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my images
will be safe.

They are safe in the sense that as long as Photoshop is available you
should be able to open them. And indeed, other programs can happily
support the format. I have done enough batch converting that I don't even
verify the files anymore (unless I update to a new version or something.)
But hey, one bad hard drive crash and your images are toast no matter what
the format. So make a RAW backup and a DNG backup and keep your working
copies mirrored. ;-)

"The only winners in the computer age are those that sell bandwidth and
storage."
-Lucas

In article ,
L. Sather wrote:
"G.T." spake:

Essentially Nikon software will handle Nikon
RAW the best, that's a given.

Not so, by any means.

With any fixed choice of RAW converter you're restricted to the
choice of reconstruction algorithm (or algorithms) offered by
that converter. There's no one-size-fits-all 'best' converter
for all RAW images; there are always going to be some images
that just don't work too well with any fixed converter choice.

That's the one thing that has kept me from a 100% DNG workflow;
I've found a handful of images (maybe 1% of my RAW conversions)
where a different converter gives me a better starting point.