RAW or DNG?

[JClishe]

I'm currently reading "The DAM Book" and the author is obviously a huge proponent of storing the images in your archive as DNG files. Is this a common approach? What do most folks here do? Do you maintain the original CR2 / NEF files, wrap the image data in a DNG, embed the RAW file in a DNG, some combination of everything??

Jason

 

[Derrel]

I'm not fully confident in the DNG file format for proprietary RAW captures made by some cameras, like say, the FujiFilm S3 and S5 Pro cameras, which have an unusual dual-photodiode layout for each pixel. One of the leading Nikon imaging gurus, Thom Hogan, is not too keen on the DNG specification either, having written that the camera manufacturers still have some proprietary or "insider" information about their file formats that Adobe is not capable (or is unwilling to spend the requisite money or time and manpower on accessing) accessing "all" of the information contained in some RAW file formats. Nikon, for example, has encrypted white balance information in its newer NEF files; the last I had heard, Adobe did not have the capability (for whatever reason-they "could not") to read the Nikon-encrypted white balance, for example, the way Nikon Capture or View NX can...instead, Adobe uses a "best guess" system. Similarly, Adobe might or might not b able to read proprietary RAW information about such things as say, the Lightness Channel settings on Nikon NEF files. Also, and this is an issue Nikon users might or might not be aware of, but Nikon's Capture software was one of the very first software applications that allowed a user to "develop" a RAW image, and then have the recipe or list of needed changes saved within the file itself, without the need to create an external sidecar file or to convert to TIFF or JPEG.

The second reason is...I do not trust Adobe Systems...look at their battle with Apple over Flash technology. I really do not want Adobe holding my images hostage at any time, now, or in the future. And frankly, I do not think Adobe's DNG specification is the absolute "best" RAW file specification that can be designed; I believe the individual camera companies have more skill and ability in optimizing their SPECIFIC hardware with its specific sensor and electronics, etc,etc. I know Adobe can do a passable job with say 35 to 50 RAW formats--but can they make the absolute BEST decisions when they cannot even read the white balance of my Nikon-generated .NEF files? I don't think so. I see Adobe as an interloper. I honestly do not trust Adobe over the "long haul". Adobe's recent pissing contest with Apple is a good example of Adobe trying to throw its weight around against a major, major player in the image manipulation/display hardware arena; the fact that Adobe is willing to act like A-holes in that arena makes their future behavior suspect.

 

[KmH]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format)

DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format, and mandates significant use of metadata. Exploitation of the file format is royalty free; Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,[SUP][4][/SUP] and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[SUP][5][/SUP] Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea.[SUP][6][/SUP] Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.[SUP][7][/SUP]

I leave my Raw files in the NEF format. I'm not to worried about Nikon going away in what remains of my lifetime.

 

[480sparky]

I leave my Raw files in the NEF format. I'm not to worried about Nikon going away in what remains of my lifetime.

Ditto. Just because something is claimed to be New And Improved doesn't always mean it is.

 

[usayit]

The second reason is...I do not trust Adobe Systems...look at their battle with Apple over Flash technology. I really do not want Adobe holding my images hostage at any time, now, or in the future.

Of course anything can happen in the future but this is less likely to happen than some proprietary format from some vendor. Reason being (as KmH linked) the DNG format is open. Worse case scenario, Adobe disappears. If there's enough push or someone with the capability, the DNG format can be integrated into future applications. Even today, anyone can integrate DNG capabilities without royalties owed to Adobe.

I'm more worried about keeping the files "readable" in the far future.


As for me, I used to save snapshots in JPG and the more important stuff in TIFF. I've just now started to convert to DNG as my main camera spits it out DNG anyways.

 

[Drake]

I am also thinking about starting to use DNG and have similar concerns as Derrel. I wouldn't like to be tied to Adobe. I know anyone is free to implement DNG in their own software, but it's still designed by Adobe. Right now I've got Lightroom student edition which for $100 is a great deal. Next year I will have finished my education. Not really sure if I am going to buy the next versions for ~$300 as I am just an amateur, not making any money from photography. Converting my shots to DNG seems a little bit like a commitment to use the future Adobe software. I am looking at the perspective of the next few decades here.

I would sure like to hear about the implementation of DNG in other, non-adobe, cheaper/free editing software, from your experience. Are they fully editable just like the CR2 files?

When I am looking at DNG I am not really interested in the reduced file size, especially since there appears to be very little difference in case of my Rebel XS 10MP files. I also don't mind the XMP sidecar files. The embeded preview could come handy though, allowing me to browse my photos in other lightweight software like the XnView. But what's really important for me is the ability to edit my files 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

Most people say you're better off converting to DNG as it will be supported longer than proprietary formats. I think that's partly true. Even if the DNG support is dropped, we'll probably be able to convert our files to the newer thing just as we can convert to DNG right now. But what happens if the only fully usable option will be a format owned and controlled by one company? Could be even Adobe. As much as I like Adobe, I wouldn't want to decide now if I'll be using their software for my whole life.

I'll probably just stick to CR2 for now. Once the files from my previous cameras are no longer supported, I shall convert them to DNG or whatever's going to be best at that time. Converting a couple thousand 10MP CR2 files is no big challenge for modern CPUs, and it certainly won't be in the future. Well, that's probably where my situation as an amateur is a little bit different from the pros with 100.000, 200.000, or more photos.

 

[usayit]

I wouldn't like to be tied to Adobe.

NEF or CR2 or whatever, you are tied to just a different company. A company that doesn't openly publish nor allow free integration to third party. From the mindset of a software developer, the following link to freely download the Adobe DNG Software Development Kit MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE in terms of assurance of future use (of course nothing is 100% assured):

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/dng/dng_sdk.html

but it's still designed by Adobe.

it's still designed by <insert company here, Nikon, Canon, etc>. Do you trust software with companies associated with consumer electronics or do you trust software with a software company?

Converting my shots to DNG seems a little bit like a commitment to use the future Adobe software. <snip>
I would sure like to hear about the implementation of DNG in other, non-adobe, cheaper/free editing software, from your experience. Are they fully editable just like the CR2 files?

GIMP supports DNG via the UFRaw plugin. So does a few others. More and more companies (albeit smaller ones; Nikon and Canon are still on their own) are integrating DNG into their cameras as well.


Its a personal decision! BUT I was just pointing out some of the errors in logic in this discussion that can easily lead to false notions of what is safe and what is less safe. Perhaps being photographers makes us a little biased towards trusting out photo-manufacturers... maybe?

BTW... Once you purchase Lightroom for $299, future upgrades are just $99. I am not sure if this also includes student versions... probably not.


PS> There are sides between the Apple and Adobe conflict over HTML5 versus Flash support in Apple's devices. I am a huge Apple fan BUT I personally think Steve Jobs stepped over the line not Adobe. So I wouldn't make decisions based on that one thing...

 

[JClishe]

When I am looking at DNG I am not really interested in the reduced file size, especially since there appears to be very little difference in case of my Rebel XS 10MP files. I also don't mind the XMP sidecar files. The embeded preview could come handy though, allowing me to browse my photos in other lightweight software like the XnView. But what's really important for me is the ability to edit my files 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

That's exactly where my thinking is at. DNG gives you an embedded preview that's natively supported in the OS and all photo browsing apps. And, you can embed the entire RAW file in the DNG if you chose, so you can always extract it and have the original RAW file if you ever needed it in the future. The extra file size for that approach doesn't really concern me; storage is cheap and I have plenty of it.

The problem I'm trying to sovle is that my archive is stored on my Windows Home Server, which we view from our Media Center PC in the family room to view family photos, etc. And my wife also views the photos from her laptop. So that means I have to make JPG's of all my RAW's so they can be viewed from the Media Center and other laptops, which obviously means I have duplicates of all my photos and is quite frankly a PITA to manage. Seems to me that DNG could potentially solve this issue, and I suspect that embedding the CR2 into the DNG wouldn't cost me any additional space over my current approach of storing both CR2 and JPG for everything.

 

[Derrel]

Time for a computer with a smarter operating system...one that can see and open and display the embedded .JPG file inside of RAW files...

 

[Drake]

Time for a computer with a smarter operating system...one that can see and open and display the embedded .JPG file inside of RAW files...

Any computer can do that, at least with Windows. All you need are the right RAW codecs installed. But the problem is that only the camera get's the privilege of saving a JPEG preview into the RAW file. It can't be updated even after editing in ACR. It'll still be the same ugly image with a funky WB. With DNG, the preview is updated every time you update the metadata.

BTW... Once you purchase Lightroom for $299, future upgrades are just $99. I am not sure if this also includes student versions... probably not.

I know about the possibility to upgrade, but I am afraid not from the student version. I have yet to check the licence. Even if I could update, I don't know if I would want to upgrade to every Lightroom release (hope that works 2 versions back, like with CS, not just the last one).