Does anyone use or have any comments about using Adobe DNG file format instead of RAW? I tried to search, because I thought I remembered somebody mentioning that, but nothing came up. Thank you.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM
Well, first, DNG is a RAW file format.
It's Adobe's open RAW format, that anyone is free to use. Their hope is that it becomes THE standard RAW format, which would make software easier. Most of the camera companies seem to want to hold on to their own formats however.
There are 3 reasons people generally use DNG :
1) Their camera is natively DNG. This is a pretty small number of models, but has been growing slowly.
2) They have a newer camera that is unsupported by their RAW software (usually ACR). Adobe provides a DNG converter, that will usually convert new cameras into a DNG format that older software can work with. (This may apply to other software that may only work on DNG as well.)
3) They think that in the future, DNG will be supported, but their current proprietary (be it Canon/Nikon/etc) won't be.
In my opinion, the 3rd one is a little paranoid and not worth it. The first two, though, are fine reasons. However, one of the reasons that the camera companies are sticking to their own formats is that they like to provide tweaks and niceties within their own development software that would be difficult to provide with DNG. That's why some folks get better or different results out of, say, DPP or Capture than ACR. If you don't use those, and don't want to, then you won't lose anything going to DNG. But if you don't have to, I don't see the point.
I would start switching to DNG but I'm too lazy. There is some reason to believe that DNG will be supported longer and cross platforms when Canon and others drop older versions which has happened already.
Posted by John Reed on October 15, 2011 at 5:43 AM
As with so many things in digital photography, just try it. Little risk or harm if you're careful in whatever you're trying and then see for yourself what works best for YOU.
I'm wary anytime I see gross generalizations on any topic (such as percent size reduction) because there are such wide ranges of design with all things digital. In this case, even if DNG are smaller, is that something really important or not?
Smaller = better? Better in what way? Gotta know how the reduction was achieved. Seems like for anything to get smaller, something must be discarded. What was thrown away?
Sidecar files are not a big deal and do have some advantages as well, one being that they go where your image file goes so you always have your metadata with the image.
You always have the software that came with your camera unless you've discarded that CD so you'll always be able to convert the RAW files from that camera to any other format you choose.
JR
Posted by David Bostedo on October 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Sidecar files are not a big deal and do have some advantages as well, one being that they go where your image file goes so you always have your metadata with the image.
That's not really an advantage - DNGs have the same information embedded in the file, so it really always goes with the image. And the sidecar file doesn't contain the base metadata that the camera writes into the RAW file; It only has what you add.
Some people don't like that fact that their RAW file is being altered by not using XMP sidecar files, but I think that's a tiny nit and wouldn't worry about that either way myself.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on October 16, 2011 at 6:49 PM
I was stuck with DNG with my Olympus E-5 while I waited for ACR and Aperture to be updated. Frankly, the conversion to DNG sucked. There was a consistent blue-green color cast, and it was very difficult to get rid of. I saved my shots in E-5 RAW format and re-converted everything once there were tools available in Aperture and ACR.
My experience may be isolated, but you couldn't pay me to go back to DNG.
Posted by Danny Laureys on November 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM
I always convert my raw files to DNG when I upload them from my media in Adobe Bridge, been doing this for a long time now, never had any problems with DNG files. No color casts
Posted by David Bostedo on November 3, 2011 at 6:03 PM
There was a consistent blue-green color cast...
That's probably because you were truly getting a default setup for your images without the knowledge that would have been in ACR behind the scenes had they supported your camera. You might check, if you want to try again, and see if they now have a DNG profile online for the E-5 that could be loaded into ACR. Usually these give you a starting point that is really good, but I haven't actually used them with DNG, only with my native Oly RAW files.
Discussion
8 repliesIt's Adobe's open RAW format, that anyone is free to use. Their hope is that it becomes THE standard RAW format, which would make software easier. Most of the camera companies seem to want to hold on to their own formats however.
There are 3 reasons people generally use DNG :
1) Their camera is natively DNG. This is a pretty small number of models, but has been growing slowly.
2) They have a newer camera that is unsupported by their RAW software (usually ACR). Adobe provides a DNG converter, that will usually convert new cameras into a DNG format that older software can work with. (This may apply to other software that may only work on DNG as well.)
3) They think that in the future, DNG will be supported, but their current proprietary (be it Canon/Nikon/etc) won't be.
In my opinion, the 3rd one is a little paranoid and not worth it. The first two, though, are fine reasons. However, one of the reasons that the camera companies are sticking to their own formats is that they like to provide tweaks and niceties within their own development software that would be difficult to provide with DNG. That's why some folks get better or different results out of, say, DPP or Capture than ACR. If you don't use those, and don't want to, then you won't lose anything going to DNG. But if you don't have to, I don't see the point.
From Scott Kelby's Lightroom 3 book:
"Advantage #1: DNG files are smaller....generally about 20% smaller.
Advantage #2: DNG files don't need a separate sidecar...XMP sidecar file."
So I thought smaller would be better if there weren't disadvantages.
I'm wary anytime I see gross generalizations on any topic (such as percent size reduction) because there are such wide ranges of design with all things digital. In this case, even if DNG are smaller, is that something really important or not?
Smaller = better? Better in what way? Gotta know how the reduction was achieved. Seems like for anything to get smaller, something must be discarded. What was thrown away?
Sidecar files are not a big deal and do have some advantages as well, one being that they go where your image file goes so you always have your metadata with the image.
You always have the software that came with your camera unless you've discarded that CD so you'll always be able to convert the RAW files from that camera to any other format you choose.
JR
That's not really an advantage - DNGs have the same information embedded in the file, so it really always goes with the image. And the sidecar file doesn't contain the base metadata that the camera writes into the RAW file; It only has what you add.
Some people don't like that fact that their RAW file is being altered by not using XMP sidecar files, but I think that's a tiny nit and wouldn't worry about that either way myself.
My experience may be isolated, but you couldn't pay me to go back to DNG.
That's probably because you were truly getting a default setup for your images without the knowledge that would have been in ACR behind the scenes had they supported your camera. You might check, if you want to try again, and see if they now have a DNG profile online for the E-5 that could be loaded into ACR. Usually these give you a starting point that is really good, but I haven't actually used them with DNG, only with my native Oly RAW files.