Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Do you use this format? Do you support it? If so why?
I have just been exposed to this and I kinda like the idea myself, but I don't know enough about it to throw my self into this media format. Seems like the goal is good, one Universal RAW format. If you use DNG Converter, what settings to you use for it and why? I'm not trying to be a pain, I just want to learn from people who are already involved in this "trend". Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 成都
|
I thought it was a good and cunning idea when I first found out about Adobe DNG, but there aren't really enough reasons to justify converting my RAW files from their original format. I don't really see the point at the moment. I'd say unless you want to work in many applications, all of which support DNG but only some of which support your camera's RAW format, then it's not really that useful.
...and all the wolves were found upside-down in a box! |
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Quote:
I never use the Canon apps. I think I might have installed them on my system, but I'm not sure about that. All my photos are imported via CF readers to iPhoto and Aperture. From there I will either modify in Aperture or PS CS2 (CS3 once I can afford it). I'm a relatively new photographer so I don't want to find myself stuck down the road with a format (CR2) that is obsolete and no means to read the data. In other words, should I build it into my workflow now while I'm still creating one. Is it worth it for me to do it this way? Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bouncing Around The Room
|
Similar to others opinions, I feel as though DNG is much more future proof than my current camera's RAW files. Right now I am shooting with a Canon XT and a Panny LX2. Both produce different RAW files but only with Adobe DNG can I covert to a common format.
As the OP said, I feel DNG is a "universal" format. So in 5-10 years when I pull a backup DVD out of my archive I will have the highest probability of being able to open and edit a file in DNG format rather than the proprietary RAW format my antiquated digital camera produced back in the day. So yes. It is definitely worth it to incorporate DNG converter into your workflow IMHO. That is the first step in mine. I convert to DNG and then backup to the archives and forget they are there until I need them. I still edit using the original RAW files and then output the post processed to JPEG (7) which I keep on a local HD for email and web. For prints I save to JPEG (10) or TIFF and upload for printing. After all editing is finished...I trash the RAWs. Should I need additional "negatives", the DNGs are always there. |
quote |
‽
|
http://www.openraw.org/node/1482/531
Quote:
So by converting to DNG, you already throw away some information. By having your app import DNG, then, you throw away even more (most apps with RAW import, such as Lightroom or Aperture, do some "optimizations", thus altering your image data). |
|
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Quote:
Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
I'm not much of a photography person to really delve into this topic, in any case. Adobe's DNG is generally the right idea, but with several obvious flaws. One nice thing is that Adobe has made the specification public. On the other hand, they don't allow third parties any input (or at least not any meaningful influence) on the future direction. And while they "grant a license" (how noble), they have patented virtually all of the format, and the license can be revoked arbitrarily at Adobe's whim (thus kicking competitors out if they feel like it). Not exactly as "open" as one might be inclined to believe. So, no, I don't feel DNG is the end-all-be-all format to archiving raw photography data. It is currently looking like a choice that is superior to vendor-specific camera formats, but that's not even definite, nor is it saying much. DNG is also on top of TIFF/EP, which in turn is based on TIFF. While TIFF/EP is an ISO standard, TIFF itself is owned and controlled by Adobe. All kinda messy. The right thing to do would be for third parties (such as Apple, the Gimp team, etc.) to create their own standard, encouraging open discussion, and publishing a format that is extensible, future-proof and most of all, free of patents and free of controls by a single vendor (or a small group of vendors). It can be done. PNG might be a good starting point. You'd still deal with potentially losing some of the original RAW format's data in the process, but that could be mitigated over time. |
|
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Yeah, once there is a standard it seems the cameras would write to that standard directly. Thus no loss of data. No one wants to be under those controls you mentioned though. I don't blame them either, I wouldn't want to be there.
So for now I guess I'll start to archive directly from the CF to the HDD and to DVD/CD from there, then to Aperture and maybe DNG. I guess I'm still not sold on this. I just don't want to find myself stuck since I don't have to luxury or pulling the negatives out of the shoe box in the closet with digital. Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Two year bump!
I'm calling this thread back from the dead to see if there has been any new life in Adobe's DNG since this was originally posted. Why do I have a sudden renewed hope in DNG? Because Canon CR2 doesn't support geotagging from DNg does. I'm heading out more often now with a GPS logger and want the ability to goetag without going back to JPEG. My current workflow is to archive the images from the CF to a folder for burning with a subfolder nested that has a Mac and PC version of Adobe DNG included. This way I can convert later if CR2 is unable to be decoded. So, anyone using DNG or know more about it? Will I lose out archiving CR2, converting to DNG then geotagging and importing into Aperture? Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
I don't know the answers to your questions, but I'm considering DNG as a long-term archival format (when I eventually get a new Mac). The specs are published and it's being standardised by the ISO committee, so it looks like a decent bet for long-term storage (better than CR2 or NEF anyway). Adobe has expressed strong long-term support for the format (though of course they'd have to do that to have a chance of widespread acceptance).
One interesting thing about DNG is that it can contain embedded NEFs (and probably CR2s), though file size obviously increases accordingly. If you feel like hedging your bets this seems like a smart option. Any big advances in your camera manufacturer's software can then be taken advantage of, and the DNG is there if the manufacturer gives up on photography or it otherwise becomes impossible to get good raw conversions. Uncompressed 16-bit TIFF might seem like a better solution but the files are even bigger than 2 versions of the raw data, and you're forever limited by the quality of today's raw converters. I feel there's still some room for improvement in Bayer demosaicing so I'm unwilling to go down that path. |
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
The Canon forum I use seems to think that DNG is the way to go if you don't use your manufacturer's software for your images. I don't ever install Canon's software and only use Aperture/iPhoto or PS for my image edits. Seems this isn't a big deal to me then.
As it turns out, CR2 does support geotagging too. Problem is that Aperture doesn't export Geotag data. iPhoto does though. Seems odd to me that they don't allow the exporting of that info in Aperture, maybe I'm doing it wrong. I will say that I won't embed my original CR2 in the DNG if I start that route. The big thing for me would be to figure out how to integrate the conversion into my workflow with Automator. Right now my images get archived automatically through Automator magic. I haven't seen any plug-ins for DNG Converter yet, though I haven't looked either. Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
I'm going to run with the idea that the next version of Aperture will have geotagging info in the meta data. Not a big deal to me, I just use keywords to identify locations, since my camera doesn't support GPS anyway.
As for DNG, being the wave of the future, I don't know. I cannot see the camera manufactures moving away from their own format, if they wanted to create as single standard, I think they would have done so by now, as the digital SLR age is getting to be 9+ years old. What I think is needed is a good replacement for jpeg format, something that isn't as stripped down, but still compresses extremely well. |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
640k ought to be enough for anybody. | Anthem | Speculation and Rumors | 46 | 2006-06-02 07:27 |
Adobe Acrobat Reader v. Preview | Mac Donald | Third-Party Products | 6 | 2006-03-29 22:41 |
Dual Core Macs and Adobe CS... in emulation? | tiiger | Apple Products | 3 | 2006-01-17 11:13 |
DNG and PS Elements 3 | Jason | Genius Bar | 3 | 2005-12-06 16:17 |
Adobe CS 2 Install Problem | intlplby | Genius Bar | 0 | 2005-10-24 23:44 |