 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005Anyone 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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.  SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net Triteleia Natives http://www.triteleia.com (415) 722-6037 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >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. Actually, you lose information because it *isn't* in the EXIF data. That's because EXIF doesn't have tags for some of the data (such as exactly which lens you are using, for one example), so the camera manufacturers have to resort to other ways of storing this stuff. That said, DNG V3.x has the ability to store all this private MakerNote data in the DNG file for those manufacturers who use a private RAW file format that is basically an extension to TIFF/EP. This includes Canon, Nikon & Pentax, and possibly a few others. While no software I know of is capable, at present, of reading and displaying this manufacturer-specific private data from the saved copy of the MakerNote tag, it is at least theoretically possible. This makes switching to DNG even less risky. Despite that, though, I still recommend archiving the original RAW file. Maybe I'm over-cautious, but DVDs are cheap. I'm just about to switch to DNG myself, so my process will be: o Create 2nd copy of files to a removable HDD before deleting from CF cards/microdrives o Archive original camera RAW files to DVD or CD o Convert RAWs to DNG o Copy DNGs to removable HDD (and possibly to DVD) o Original RAW files can now be deleted from system (although I'll probably keep selected images online, just in case I want to use a different RAW converter) o All the usual image editing stuff. o Save processed files to removable HDD and to CD. I have a Pentax istDS. Before I convert the Pentax raw files to DNG files I use the Pentax Browser to rename the raw files, after discarding the bad ones, AND then saving all the EXIF data on a spread sheet. That way all the EXIF data is preserved, although it is all not on the individual file. AE >>> Just wondering if anyone here is committed to DNG? I finally tried it >>> out [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > o Save processed files to removable HDD and to CD. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > switching to DNG Converter to Adobe Camera RAW to Photoshop if my > images will be safe. Only downside I've found so far is that DNG-files cannot be opened by a number of RAW-converters I sometimes use. I.e. once they're converted they are out of bounds for Canon's EOS Viewer Utility, and RawShooter essentials - and I'm more or less stuck with ACR. (Haven't tried Bibble or C1, tho'). Hopefully, other software houses will soon support the format. But for now, I'm keeping my CRWs along with the DNGs, just in case. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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 >> 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. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >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) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >install software at all made by people with that kind of attitude toward >my system. Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin? You can extract that from the CD itself and "install" it if you want. No need to do the install routine from the cd. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin? No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed, iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error message that it can't find the media importer. I don't know if any software that uses Nikon's SDK actually ships the Nikon libraries along with the software, which would make that unnecessary. But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have installed Nikon's software. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Not sure what "library" you're talking about. Do you mean the PS plugin? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have >installed Nikon's software. Still not clear, you mean what bundled software? NikonView, Picture project? Which? ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Still not clear, you mean what bundled software? NikonView, Picture > project? Which? Either one. Bundled as opposed to Nikon Capture, which is nefarious in other ways. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Still not clear, you mean what bundled software? NikonView, Picture >> project? Which? > >Either one. That sucks, as if I read this correctly you only get the raw processing capability of these apps, which is minimal. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > That sucks, as if I read this correctly you only get the raw processing > capability of these apps, which is minimal. It doesn't affect other software, if that's what you mean -- you can still use Adobe Camera Raw, provided you remove the Nikon plugin from Photoshop. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> That sucks, as if I read this correctly you only get the raw processing >> capability of these apps, which is minimal. > >It doesn't affect other software, if that's what you mean -- you can still >use Adobe Camera Raw, provided you remove the Nikon plugin from Photoshop. No what I meant is having to install the libraries just to get the minimalist raw conversion provided, which negates much of the reason to shoot raw in the first place. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like > preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get > installed with the bundled software. If you don't have that installed, > iView, for example, can't display NEF files and will simply show an error > message that it can't find the media importer. That is not true. I am able to view .NEF files from within Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop Elements 3.0 (with updated plugin from Adobe's site). I never installed the Nikon software on my latest machine until lately, when I desired a friendlier picture organizer than what is in Elements 3.0 (CPU hog ... doesn't play well with my machine), so I installed Picture Perfect. In short, the ONLY thing you need is the Adobe supplied RAW plugin to view .NEF files. Microsoft's RAW download also works with no Nikon software installed. > I don't know if any software that uses Nikon's SDK actually ships the > Nikon libraries along with the software, which would make that unnecessary. > But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have > installed Nikon's software. It is probably capable of using the Adobe RAW plugin. Many software products are Adobe plugin compatible, including Paint Shop Pro. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. >> No. When you use an application that calls Nikon's SDK to do things like >> preview NEF files, you need to have Nikon's libraries installed, which get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Photoshop CS2 and Photoshop Elements 3.0 (with updated plugin from > Adobe's site). Right. I said "an application that calls Nikon's SDK", which Adobe stuff does not. They have their own code to read NEF files. >> But iView MediaPro in particular can't work with NEF files unless you have >> installed Nikon's software. > > It is probably capable of using the Adobe RAW plugin. It isn't. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Right. I said "an application that calls Nikon's SDK", which Adobe stuff > does not. They have their own code to read NEF files. Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping. You may as well use the Nikon software directly. Seems like iView didn't want to or couldn't pay for licensing to distribute the SDK with their software. Again, why bother to use iView then? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install > another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to > its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping. I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even allowed to? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Ah .. I see. In that case, any software that requires one to install >> another vendors software before you can use theirs, just for access to >> its basic libraries, is likely not worth the cost of its shrinkwrapping. > > I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even > allowed to? I am quite sure that they can be licensed. Nikon likes money like everybody else. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. [snip] > > I don't know -- does anyone include the camera libraries? Are they even > > allowed to? > > I am quite sure that they can be licensed. Nikon likes money like > everybody else. The Nikon advisory that responded to criticism of their encryption of the WB for the D2X said: "With each introduction of a new Nikon digital Single Lens Reflex model, Nikon updates the available SDK selection to provide new information; this is the situation with the D2X, D2Hs and D50 models. As stated above, application for the Nikon SDK is possible for bona fide software companies that send Nikon a written application for the SDK. Once approved, the SDK is provided to the developer at no charge and they are authorized to use it". I don't know whether they are authorised to distribute it. I believe the developer has to sign an NDA. And the SDK doesn't provide access to the raw data, just to de-mosaiced data. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefresponse.asp -- Barry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/ >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) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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. > >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) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. Doesn't do that on OS X. Greg >> >Not having to install Nikon's software just to get the libraries to be >able [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> compact flash cards when you plug one in to the system. No options >> during the install - it just does it. >Doesn't do that on OS X. That's not really an option. For a start, it doesn't run on this hardware. >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. I'm running the PSE3 demo and after the install you can disable this. Yes it is frustrating. Even more I 've found no way to completely disable the add to organizer selection in the save dialogs. I don't wish to use this feature at all. ---------- Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> 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." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> 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 >"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.