Want to use DNG? poll

asamuel

I'm still not getting it so lets get to the crunch

What I want

To make shooting RAW my standard

To have a Dam system using a catlogue > bridge > ACR (and possibly Dx0) > CS2 with my Canon350D

Settle on something that will make me organised and more productive

Be confident that I have my options open for the future

DNG background

QUOTE]To make a DNG file you need to download Adobe's free DNG converter http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows. This program will batch convert your RAW files to DNG files. If you're not familiar with the DNG format (sometimes called the digital negative) it's a non-proprietary, open format for RAW images. Some info on the DNG format is available on http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html and http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/dng.shtml.[/QUOTE]Ben2A

Positives
DNG can also ensure that SOME other applications can read more information related to your RAW shot images. eg when you modify ITPC info and keywords in RAW sidecars they aren't easily read - can you tell how comfortable I am with this?

It can also reduce your file size and may ensure that you can read your files when Technology changes and we move away from the splintered RAW software we have today.

Negatives

It can increase file size depending on the JPG attatched.

No one can be confident that DNG will be used in the future

It is yet another step in the workflow

It CAN confuse things within other steps of your workflow

Consider would you use DNG within your standardised workflow?....lets see

ian408

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

So it's kind of obvious that I voted no. Where do you stand (since you
haven't voted yet).

I'm going with RAW until DNG becomes a standard that is well supported.
Right now, there is no compelling reason to convert so why go through the
pain?

asamuel

this DNG and cheese thread is over my head (me too!)

Err...I'm sitting on the line. I think if I use IView Media Pro3 in the future then its compelling. But how does the advent of Lightbox change things? We cannot Know. I dont want to get to garbled here, and sady thats all I can do.......So I'm going to sit on the fence.

Thanks to everyone who has helped me this far. Showing patience were I have none. I promise I will read theDAMbook as soon as it arrives!

http://www.thedambook.com/

StevenV

Yes! I would use DNG! its the cheese!

I think - and I've not really studied it that much, that I'd use it IF... Photo Mechanic (which is what I use to extract raw off my cards and automatically rename & keyword my images) could do the conversion at the same time, so that I only have DNG to deal with. I've already got RAW, PSD and final JPGs to keep track of, I want to replace raw with dng not add another format.

wxwax

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

ian408 wrote:

I'm going with RAW until DNG becomes a standard that is well supported.
Right now, there is no compelling reason to convert so why go through the
pain?

Pretty much my feeling. RAW works, why change?

Nikolai

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

Just like Ian and Sid, at this point there is not enough compelling reasons to introduce another conversion step into already non-trivial workflow.
Since DNG is just one of the file formats, all the major apps plain have to support the others, too.
If I see that major s/w manufacturers are phasing out their support of the the proprietary RAW formats - well, then I will consider conversion.
So - why worry, at least now.

marlof

Yes! I would use DNG! its the cheese!

Still on the fence here.
I think the question is: do you use your proprietary RAW format (not just the Canon named .RAW file), or do you use the DNG RAW format. To me, DNG has the advantage that apps like Bridge and Lightroom can store the conversion settings and other information (like keywords etc.) in the file itself, in stead of just in a sidecar file, but it retains the nondestructive data other RAW formats have. So if you have your file, you have all the other info, in stead of having to worry if you've also copied over the sidecar info to use in other apps etc. As for the workflow: you could use an application like Downloader Pro from Breeze Systems, that allows you to automagically rename your files, place them in certain locations on your disk, and convert to DNG using the Adobe DNG Converter, without you even looking at it.

In the DPReview Olympus DSLR forum, a guy named Barry Pearson often posts on DNG (as someone promoting it). He has collected tons of good information on DNG, which you can find at his DNG pages.

I've still not gone over though, but that has everything to do with the special color I can achieve when using the Olympus proprietary software, that can only deal with their proprietary ORF format. It's the same reason that I can use other apps for bulk conversions, but use Olympus software if I want to pay extra attention to a particular file. Yes, I know I can embed the original ORF in the DNG file, but to me that just creates an extra hassle and hurdle, that I'm not prepared to take. So I'll probably go to DNG if or when the specifics of the cameras I use are better understood by third party RAW converters. Which might be never, since camera makers tend to keep the good stuff to themselves. Which means I'm bound to get best results from the quirky applications my camera maker (who proofs software isn't their forte) puts out to this world.

edit: brain moment: I've realized Canon uses .RAW for the raw files in some of their cameras, which confused me when thinking about using DNG in stead of RAW, since I thought about raw files in general.

claudermilk

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

I think DNG is a great concept, but in practice it's not yet ready for primetime. Adobe is still making many changes to the format, that apparently break compatibility with older ones. This causes some developers to shy away from DNG right now, and I happen to use some of those tools. Regardless of that, at this point it's simply another step to add to the workflow for no real gain. I know the XMP sidecar files drive some people nuts, but they don't bother me since most of my tools handle them automatically, and I don't move files around much (if at all) after they are downloaded. I'm keeping an eye on developments, just like I am with XMP; but I don't feel either is mature enough, and not yet accepted enough for me to let go of the CR2 and IIM IPTC just yet.

silvershoes

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

No, thanks

claudermilk wrote:

Adobe is still making many changes to the format, that apparently break compatibility with older ones. This causes some developers to shy away from DNG right now, and I happen to use some of those tools.

Where does that leave the early adopters? Do they have to reconvert and resave to DVD? Is there an interim conversion, or do they have to start completely over from RAW? Isn't that the very thing DNG is supposed to prevent? :cry

It's a swell proposal. It's just not stable enough to use imho.

claudermilk

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

Yup. That's why I'm not using DNG yet--like I said it's not ready for primetime because of this IMHO.

asamuel

this DNG and cheese thread is over my head (me too!)

I want to bump this poll. and consider again at this juncture if with the recent Adobe developments we want t oconvert to DNG. Having just read the DAM book. I beelieve that I want to take on a comprehensive DAM flow and to do this with good cataloguing requires DNG.

I am not up to date with new CS3 developments, are these more DNG friendly?

claudermilk

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

My vote stays the same. Good cataloging certainly does not require DNG. It requires a good cataloging app and good workflow & planning on your part.

pathfinder

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

As long as the latest RAW convertors continue to support older camera RAW formats ( like the Canon 10D) I will continue to archive as RAW files.

If the day comes when older RAW formats are no longer able to be edited with the latest RAW convertor, then I might change my opinion.

arodney

claudermilk wrote:

I think DNG is a great concept, but in practice it's not yet ready for primetime. Adobe is still making many changes to the format, that apparently break compatibility with older ones. This causes some developers to shy away from DNG right now, and I happen to use some of those tools.

Its no different from TIFF, an openly document format that Adobe owns.

There are two choices here. Adobe can let DNG sit and wait till the cows come home for the big camera manufacturers to support it, or they can continue to update its capabilities and hope end users who are smart, will see the advantages. Those include a smaller archive (or a bigger one with the original Raw data, no harm done), no sidecar files, embedded JPEG's for viewing and printing the instructions that describe the current rendering. Hopefully in the future, we'll be able to store multiple rendering instructions within ONE DNG archive.

DNG is just a container much like the concept behind PDF. That it's not proprietary and based on an open spec, so much the better.


Catch 22. I see no downsides to DNG, only upsides.

digismile

I've done some testing on DNG in my workflow and for me, I chose not to use it (yet), simply because Adobe has not provided a Vista codec (to allow you to see the image in a regular explorer window).

Although this seems pretty trivial, there are times when I want to grab a file and not have to open Bridge/Iview/Photoshop/some DNG aware app. There have been posts on Adobe's forums asking for this since last January!

They way I look at it, if they want me to use it, I shouldn't have to give up any features that I currently have with another product. It needs to be seemless to my existing workflow and habits.

asamuel

this DNG and cheese thread is over my head (me too!)

I've made the move over to DNG. I am overhauling my DAM workflow, investing in Iview media pro and it seems to me the best way to resolve the compatibility.

If claudemilk is correct and you don't need DNG just a good workflow and catalogue, then it escaped me. But then I just plunged in.

bugzie

No! I wouldn't use DNG I'd rather eat dairy lee!

What? Another Version?
At the moment i'm using iView Media Pro (now known as Expression Media) for cataloging, Nikon Capture NX for raw conversion and PS for any further editing. So, i can end up with an original JPG file direct from the camera, an NEF file direct from the camera, a TIFF conversion from Capture NX, a PSD file with my photoshop editing layers, an uncompressed but flattened PSD of the final image file, and a JPG of the final version for web and print. I can't see the point of adding a DNG file into this work flow. If, in the future, proprietory formats do go the way of the dinosaur, I'll convert my NEF files then. It's not as though this is going to happen overnight: I'll start up my computer one morning and everything that reads NEF files will have vanished.

LiquidAir

I am not comfortable converting my CR2 files to DNG and then throwing the CR2 away. What that means to me is either I need to track a CR2 file and an XMP file or I need to track a CR2 file and a DNG file. The former requires considerably less storage.

If I needed to pass RAW files around to other people I would use DNG, but as a one person shop CR2 files are much simpler.

SloYerRoll

Yes! I would use DNG! its the cheese!

wxwax wrote:

Pretty much my feeling. RAW works, why change?

I'm sure that's what people said that wrote documents in word perfect in the 80's about their software. Can you open a word perfect doc now w/o jumping through hoops of fire?
If your going to shoot RAW. I think you should go w/ DNG. The chances of nikon or canon changing their proprietary format is much higher than Adobe changing theirs.
Adobe understands the need for consistant digital workflow. Nikon and canon know digital imaging well. Do the math.

-Jon

arodney

SloYerRoll wrote:

If your going to shoot RAW. I think you should go w/ DNG. The chances of nikon or canon changing their proprietary format is much higher than Adobe changing theirs.

Plus in the case of Adobe, the changes are publicly documented! We HOPE DNG changes and has more useful capabilities (like multiple rendering instructions) in the future.

CatOne

pathfinder wrote:

As long as the latest RAW convertors continue to support older camera RAW formats ( like the Canon 10D) I will continue to archive as RAW files.

If the day comes when older RAW formats are no longer able to be edited with the latest RAW convertor, then I might change my opinion.

I'm sorta in this boat as well. As of today, DNG doesn't offer me (despite Andrew's detail of what it offers) anything REALLY compelling to change, and I currently have no issues with my CRW and CR2 files, so I'll stick with them. Also more software products support the RAW files themselves but not DNG perfectly so that's also an advantage for RAW for me.