dng exif

joshhuntnm

here is one for the hmmmm files.

When I convert my files to dng and post them on smugmug, most of the exif data disappears. See http://joshhunt.smugmug.com/gallery/5044355_ncE6R#303135276_y2NbQ


the info is still there--I can see it in PS

Any ideas?

Andy

joshhuntnm wrote:

here is one for the hmmmm files.

When I convert my files to dng and post them on smugmug, most of the exif data disappears. See http://joshhunt.smugmug.com/gallery/5044355_ncE6R#303135276_y2NbQ


the info is still there--I can see it in PS

Any ideas?

The info is not there, sorry.. here's the original file:



Something's happening on your end when you create your jpgs from the dng file, you are losing metadata. Moving to finishing school.

claudermilk

joshhuntnm wrote:

Any ideas?

Don't convert to DNG. Really. What is the benefit you are trying to get by doing so? Personally I see no reason to mess with it & this problem is one of many reasons not to, IMHO.

SloYerRoll

claudermilk wrote:

What is the benefit you are trying to get by doing so?

Being able to open older non proprietary files when existing technology is outdated.
i.e. If you have an old lotus file that needs to be opened. It's doubtful that you will even find an OS that will run an application that will play w/ that file in this day and age.

IMO:
Adobe is much more committed to maintaining a global format to ensure creative types can always open their files for years to come. If any major camera maker comes up w/a revolutionary way to store files. I don't think for a second that they will look back to make sure they guy w/ the outdated camera can open their outdated files.

JMO.

-Jon

joshhuntnm

SloYerRoll wrote:

Being able to open older non proprietary files when existing technology is outdated.
i.e. If you have an old lotus file that needs to be opened. It's doubtful that you will even find an OS that will run an application that will play w/ that file in this day and age.

IMO:
Adobe is much more committed to maintaining a global format to ensure creative types can always open their files for years to come. If any major camera maker comes up w/a revolutionary way to store files. I don't think for a second that they will look back to make sure they guy w/ the outdated camera can open their outdated files.

JMO.

-Jon

that was my rational. I have sometimes wondered, however, if I am listening too my to the Adobe line that DNG is THE long term archival solution for the future and that we will soon be seeing many cameras that write to this universal / open format. Is it really becoming the industry standard, or is that just Adobe's wishful thinking? They made it work with PDF, they can make it work with DNG

Richard

joshhuntnm wrote:

that was my rational. I have sometimes wondered, however, if I am listening too my to the Adobe line that DNG is THE long term archival solution for the future and that we will soon be seeing many cameras that write to this universal / open format. Is it really becoming the industry standard, or is that just Adobe's wishful thinking? They made it work with PDF, they can make it work with DNG

It's an admirable goal, but it doesn't seem to be catching on very fast. I'm keeping my CR2 files for now. If DNG does take off, there will be plenty of time to convert them.

SloYerRoll

joshhuntnm wrote:

that was my rational. I have sometimes wondered, however, if I am listening too my to the Adobe line that DNG is THE long term archival solution for the future and that we will soon be seeing many cameras that write to this universal / open format. Is it really becoming the industry standard, or is that just Adobe's wishful thinking? They made it work with PDF, they can make it work with DNG

Richard makes a good point of having plenty of time to convert if things change.

Right now, it's Adobe's wishful thinking. But when file sizes are smaller & image quality is the same. I don't see why you'd purposely take up more HD space. No matter how cheap memory becomes, seems a bit daft to me.

Richard

SloYerRoll wrote:

But when file sizes are smaller & image quality is the same. I don't see why you'd purposely take up more HD space. No matter how cheap memory becomes, seems a bit daft to me.

You're right about saving disk space. But it does introduce an extra step in the workflow unless the camera can produce DNG files natively. My 20D does not.

joshhuntnm

Richard wrote:

You're right about saving disk space. But it does introduce an extra step in the workflow unless the camera can produce DNG files natively. My 20D does not.

do any cameras write to DNG files?

It does create a few extra steps for me. I use elements for organization and. . . I won't go through it but it is several steps.

I am one that likes my photos organized. They were all jpg till I started shooting RAW. now, some are RAW, some are jpg, some are DNG. I'd like to settle into one workflow and stay with it. Right now that is DNG, but I am only about 80% confident that is the right decision.

The original question about Elements striping the EXIF info as it goes to smugmug is a bit of a neusance, but I suspect they will fix that little bug in time.

Richard

Josh,

A number of high end cameras (Hasselblad, Leica) and some prosumer and P&S models offer DNG options, but as far as I know, Canon and Nikon do not. I don't think there's anything you will come to regret about using DNG, so don't worry about it. I personally don't use it because it doesn't offer compelling immediate benefits. If it ever becomes as popular as PDF, I will gladly switch to it.

Rhuarc

I do use DNG, because while it does add an extra step I really value the few thigns it does add for me:

1) No sidecar values to keep track of
2) Embedded preview (which my software workflow using IDImager can make use of)
3) Smaller file sizes (not by too much, but a little)

Numbers 1 and 2 are the biggies for me. But every person's situation is different. I say find something that works and go for it!

SloYerRoll

Richard wrote:

You're right about saving disk space. But it does introduce an extra step in the workflow unless the camera can produce DNG files natively. My 20D does not.

I see what your saying about extra step. But I import w/ Lr and this setting is automatically selected. So there's no real extra steps for me.

Lr does have to do some extra work to convert. But that's why I built a good machine. So it could do the heavy lifting when I wanted it to.

arodney

Aside from issues here with DNG, there's many compelling reasons to use it:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

The spec has just be upgraded, you're going to see some additional and very cool options and functionality for DNG coming soon (under NDA, can't say much more). If you care to "read between the lines", check out

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/05/dng_submitted_t.html

If you're an Adobe user of their Raw converters, its all good news.

dlplumer

Excuse my ignorance, but how does one access EXIF from posted pictures on DGrin?

Thanks

cmason

dlplumer wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, but how does one access EXIF from posted pictures on DGrin?

Thanks

EXIF is only provided in Original images. if someone posted any size other than original, you can't see EXIF. Links to the gallery are the only way to do this.

joshhuntnm

dlplumer wrote:

Excuse my ignorance, but how does one access EXIF from posted pictures on DGrin?

Thanks

I am not sure if this is what you were asking--you may already know this, but you asked. when you hover over the image a little menu pops out from the right. One of these is an I (for information). click on that and you can see whatever exif info is available. this can be turned off and is not always available. some photographers don't like to share their secrets.

Richard

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am not sure if this is what you were asking--you may already know this, but you asked. when you hover over the image a little menu pops out from the right. One of these is an I (for information). click on that and you can see whatever exif info is available. this can be turned off and is not always available. some photographers don't like to share their secrets.

That's correct on Smugmug, as long as the uploaded jpg had EXIF data to begin with and the site owner permits displaying camera data. Dgrin does not have this feature. Some people will link their Dgrin images to the Info display, but the most people do not. For instructions on linking EXIF data, look here: How To Post on Dgrin.

Cheers,

dlplumer

Thanks much

KED

claudermilk wrote:

Don't convert to DNG. Really. What is the benefit you are trying to get by doing so? Personally I see no reason to mess with it & this problem is one of many reasons not to, IMHO.

Also because if you are a Lightroom user you have no choice if you want to work with a raw image.

cmason

KED wrote:

Also because if you are a Lightroom user you have no choice if you want to work with a raw image.

?Huh? Lightroom will handle RAW, JPEG, and yes DNG files, all the same. (even handles TIFF, and PSD, though not sure if it is the same)

KED

cmason wrote:

?Huh? Lightroom will handle RAW, JPEG, and yes DNG files, all the same. (even handles TIFF, and PSD, though not sure if it is the same)

I'm not sure what you mean by "handle" -- certainly LR can process files in various formats -- but I shoot exclusively in RAW and after importing almost 10K images into LR, I don't believe that I have the option of keeping them as .CR2s -- as SloYerRoll stated, "convert to DNG" is the default option, but "keep as CR2" or the equivalent isn't an option at all to the best of my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong (although with that many DNGs maybe I am better off not knowing!).

cmason

All the images in my Lightroom database are just as I imported them: .CR2. I have no DNG images. You are in no way forced to do this. Next time you import, simply select the other option: "Copy photos to new location and import" vs " Copy photos as digital negative image (DNG) and import"