Adobe DNG WHO & WHY

[WinstonRumfoord]

What is the benefit? Will it outweigh the negatives?

Personally, .cr2 straight form my Canons are fine, storage is cheap and latitude in PP is valuable.

 

[robgendreau]

What is the benefit? Will it outweigh the negatives?

Personally, .cr2 straight form my Canons are fine, storage is cheap and latitude in PP is valuable.

We cited some benefits. What are the downsides besides the time and effort to convert?

I've noticed with some Canon RAWs I have that Adobe and Apple seem to take significantly longer processing them, but I'm not sure why. Maybe if I converted those I could speed subsequent processing up.

 

[sarge]

I convert all my images into DNG before importing into LR. The OP might be interested in the following book on the topic from author and image expert Jeff Schewe:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Negat...7XG_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426528997&sr=1-2

I haven't read the book but am familiar with the recommendations/findings. Here is a relevant quote from the book:

'the camera makers created short term solutions to deal with the technical issues of writing raw sensor data to disk'
BOLD MY EMPHASIS

The following are a list of digital file formats that the Library of Congress will accept. It's worth noting that the custodians at LOC put a good deal of thought into preservation issues. Proprietary camera RAW files are not on the list for good reason

http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreserv...ongress-wants-you-and-your-file-format-ideas/

 

[MCAsan]

LR expert who doesn't DNG: http://lightroomkillertips.com/to-dng-or-not-to-dng/

As for the Library of Congress, I never have to worry about them seeking a submission from me.

 

[maflynn]

It seems to me, the debate for/against DNG is largely a personal preference. We can go on and on about the advantages of DNG and the disadvantages. What is clear is that some folks prefer the format, its works for them, and others don't.

 

[sarge]

LR expert who doesn't DNG: http://lightroomkillertips.com/to-dng-or-not-to-dng/

As for the Library of Congress, I never have to worry about them seeking a submission from me.

...especially if you don't plan to seek protection in the form of a copyright submission.

 

[dimme]

Its DNG al the way for me. After losing the link to some side car files on my server, I converted everything raw to DNG. For me it seems the best future proof solution.

 

[FieldingMellish]

There's just no way that I'll be assimilated into the Adobe collective. All these years shooting diverse Raw file formats and no issue has ever been presented that a DNG would have been to the rescue.

 

[sarge]

There's just no way that I'll be assimilated into the Adobe collective. All these years shooting diverse Raw file formats and no issue has ever been presented that a DNG would have been to the rescue.

Well that's kind of missing the point entirely. The choice of DNG vs RAW is in fact a hedge centered around the question of whether or not a photographer will be able to access RAW file formats in the future. We save RAW files so that we can re-interpret the sensor data in hopes of taking advantage of future improvements in interpolating that data.

You have to ask yourself whether you're willing to risk wrangling a panoply of closed formats from a multitude of vendors who may or may not still be in business (Kodak anyone?) or whether you would rather rely on an open source format that is based on a well established image standard - this is a particularly challenging problem expressly because it is not yet an overtly obvious one.

Imagine a scenario where a private investment company takes over a flailing camera manufacturer. Last on the list of private equity concerns is either the product or the customer. They exist to maximize profit and would surely recognize a captured market when they see one- in this view you are not a customer, you are a hostage.

If I were them, I would simply pull the licenses from other conversion programs, charge every customer a fee to access those raw proprietary engines, or force you to host your raw files on my cloud service for a monthly rental fee. Or maybe they're not that diabolical, maybe they just decide not to pour resources into making sure that these files are readable on future platforms or storage devices.

Even if Bain Capital were to take over Adobe, I don't believe that they could retract the open license that governs DNG. Converting to DNG is a personal decision, but it is also an informed one.

 

[maflynn]

I think the risk of losing the ability to read RAW files in the future seems a little far fetched. Are you saying that Lightroom will drop my Olympus RAW processing but keep it in DNG?

 

[sarge]

How many image management environments have come and gone? Why is the OP considering DNG? Because he/she is BEING FORCED OUT OF APERTURE! Oh gee, you're no longer supporting this software you sold me? What a shock!

Yes, I'm suggesting that Olympus may not be around forever. Who is to say that Lightroom 10 will continue to support Olympus RAW conversion? Hell, who is to say that in 5 years you will still be able to buy a hard drive? Maybe we will all be forced into cloud storage where they don't offer RAW options because it would be too technologically inconvenient, or more likely not politically viable? We all understand what an impediment politics can play in the adoption common sense objectives.

All I'm suggesting is that the community take reasonable steps to mitigate against these potential pitfalls. DNG has only been around 10 years. Let's re-visit this conversation in 20 years and see where we're at!

 

[robgendreau]

I agree it's unlikely I'd be able to process 2010 Olympus RAW files if Oly gave up on it. First their software wouldn't be able to do, then as new LR or Apple updates came along they'd also dump it. But "unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible."

Am I converting mine en masse? no. But DNGs have "come to my rescue" numerous times. Maybe some hear never play with others, but many of us do. And we can share with people with a much different mix of hardware and/or software by using a common format.

.docx files from MS Word are super ubiquitous, but even then on occasion I've had to send something generic to someone.

Yeah, I doubt DNG will become the PDF of the image world. Images in RAW format from high end cameras are a piddly little corner of the image and file world. But consider if we get RAW files from smartphones. Apple refuses to provide converters for hated rival Samsung, who retaliates by making their RAWs impervious to reverse engineering. Apple follows suit, and they sue each other. You need to buy a license to convert RAW data. Aargh. Unlikely of course, but I always think it's better to have choices, especially open specs choices.

And I still haven't heard any major downsides to even wholesale conversion. One new advantage I could get is that some online storage sites, like Amazon, won't do my RAWS, but would take DNG, and that frees up TBs of free storage for me.

 

[MCAsan]

If I were worried about the future of a camera vendor...it would be Nikon, not Olympus. Olympus, like Canon, is not a one trick pony. Both do lots of other things. But Nikon is first and foremost a DSLR and lens company. But the future of Nikon is a topic for another thread.

 

[sarge]

That true LOL. Then again, Eastman Kodak were diversified in pharmaceutical & chemical and they still took it on the chin.

 

[dimme]

If I were worried about the future of a camera vendor...it would be Nikon, not Olympus. Olympus, like Canon, is not a one trick pony. Both do lots of other things. But Nikon is first and foremost a DSLR and lens company. But the future of Nikon is a topic for another thread.

Nikon does make microscopes and other optics.
http://www.nikoninstruments.com