To DNG or not to DNG?

[AcadieLibre]

Found this on a blog and thought it was something to consider, I have downloaded it and may try it out at least. I would be interested what others think.

http://www.eiserman.net/blog/2008/05...ot-to-dng.html

[Alex Wilson]

Found this on a blog and thought it was something to consider, I have downloaded it and may try it out at least. I would be interested what others think.

http://www.eiserman.net/blog/2008/05...ot-to-dng.html

My workflow:

-Shoot RAW
-Convert RAW to DNG (I don't embed the RAW file, though), the DNGs are about 50% the size of the RAWs, since my camera doesn't have RAW compression
-Zip up and burn my RAWs to DVD, take them off my hard drive
-Keep the DNGs while working on pictures, archive them along with the PSDs of edits, once I finish working on a shoot

That gives me the files in two formats (great for future-proofing) and in two different spots (in case of damage to the discs).

[Marko]

From the link..

DNG is a "universal" RAW format for Cameras developed by Adobe.

This is interesting but I wonder will DNG last or will it go by the wayside? I may be showing my ignorance on this topic but if it's so universal why have most people I mentioned it to, NOT heard of it. They've ALL heard about RAW.

If I had extra cash to bet, I'd bet that SOME version of RAW will still be around in 10 years. DNG..? Not sure.

[AcadieLibre]

Not heard of DNG? thought all photographers had heard of it, surprised those you spoke to Marko have not. I would just think it was great if all the Major Camera makers agreed on a RAW standard or got behind DNG. I think there could be issues with the lack of a RAW standard down the line because companies do go under, cease to function or get swallowed by a competitor. Like to see an Open Source Standard that all of them agree to. Do I think it will happen, the odds are not looking good, but I still am going to hold out some hope. If Adobe gets ISO accepted I think it greatly increase the longevity of it opposed to all the individual RAW formats on the Market. This has been a debate for years now and I don't see a push for it by consumers or the will from Corporations until something happens and people get fed up. Just foolish to have so many versions of the same supposed format. The more I photograph the more absolute value I see in RAW type format, would be nice if they would all just get along and play nice and agree to a standard.

[Marko]

Not heard of DNG? thought all photographers had heard of it, surprised those you spoke to Marko have not.

The majority of pros that I know and speak to regularly all went digital a few years ago and I guess they are happy with RAW. To be fair I only asked 4 people and only 1 knew what it was. The other person heard of it but wasn't sure what it was and 2 were completely in the dark.

To be fair again, as active researchers of many things photographic we are on many different sites and are actively finding new things out all the time. MANY pros don't do this type of research and so they are no so in the loop.

[AcadieLibre]

Since that post I have talked to others and I was surprised they had not heard of DNG either. So it seems the norm and those who know of DNG are a minority, I have known of DNG for several years and just thought others would have too, so I guess I was wrong. After I read your post I was out last night for a while and was talking to a few people when I asked them if they knew of DNG they all sort of gave me a blank dumbfounded look and said "What the hells DNG".

[Alex Wilson]

From the link..


This is interesting but I wonder will DNG last or will it go by the wayside? I may be showing my ignorance on this topic but if it's so universal why have most people I mentioned it to, NOT heard of it. They've ALL heard about RAW.

If I had extra cash to bet, I'd bet that SOME version of RAW will still be around in 10 years. DNG..? Not sure.

RAW is not a standard format in the same way DNG is. Different cameras save their RAW files in totally different formats. You can only load the images with a program that know the file format for that camera or family of cameras that share the format it understands.

The DNG file has a standard format, and the specification of how the data in it is open, which makes it easier for different applications to support it.

A RAW file is just the camera's way of storing *all* the bits recorded by the sensor. Different cameras (and especially across different makers) will save that data in extremely different ways. RAW files will most likely always be around, but as camera sensors increase bit-depth and change photosensor layouts, the RAW files with keep changing and changing.

I'm sure Adobe would love it if more makers supported in-camera creating of DNG files -- that would mean they would need to issue updates to their software ever time a manufacturer changes or releases a new file format.

If you only save your images in RAW format, then if you ever need to open them, you will need an application that knows how to open them, or at least one that can convert them to a format you can use.

While Adobe has the resources to continually add support for increasingly diverse and numerous RAW file formats, not all software developers do. By supporting DNG, they can make their software support all RAW images that the DNG converter can convert from.

DNGs have another advantage: Compared to the RAW files from mu Fuji S2, Adobe Bridge handles (rotating, generating previews, applying adjustments to the RAW processor like colour temperature adjustments) DNG files are much faster for it to process. Combined with the smaller size, they are way better than RAW files.

[Marko]

I appreciate that fuller explanation Alex and agree with the premise. This will surely be a time will tell scenario though. The best technology doesn't always win as we have seen many many times. Sometimes it's simply a matter of how many people accept a certain technology that rules in the end even though that technology may not be the best.

Sure adobe wants their DNG format to be standard - but will the masses accept that standard? Or will they simply use RAW or a version of RAW that MAY become accepted by all? It's a crapshoot at this point....and a newer technology may still come out in the near future.

But for now, as 2 of us in this thread have attested to, MANY photographers (pro and advanced amateurs) haven't even heard of DNG. That does not bode well for it becoming 'the' standard at this point in time, despite its advantages over RAW which almost all pros and advanced amateurs have heard of and use regularly.

Thx

Marko