RAW vs. TIFF

<p>How so? It should allow you to use Photoshop CS with those DNGs.</p>

<p>I downloaded the program, took a raw, converted it to a DNG file and tried opening in CS. It told me it was an incorrect type of file.</p>

<p>Why the heck are you wanting to convert to DNG? I didn't think anyone did that anymore.</p>

<p>At the risk of going a bit of a tangent, instead of starting a new thread, I would like to ask the experts here the following question:<br>

When one shoots RAW, what is the "thing" that you see on the camera monitor or RAW converter screen? Is it a JPEG image? If yes, the camera has already done some manipulations with it. Would it look the same had one shot a JPEG in the first place?</p>

<p>Apurva, yes - there is a JPEG preview embedded in the RAW file which is processed the same way a JPEG would be in camera. It's low resolution, though.<br>

____<br>

Brian, the D800 really merits shooting RAW to get the very most out of it. The ViewNX2 option is not bad - you can convert all to real 16-bits TIFFs instead (in batch), and work on those. This way, you keep the original RAW (in case), and you have a higher quality TIFF file with the exact same look as the camera would have produced.<br>

TIFF in camera is just space-wasting (as Patrick explained). TIFF has the same downsides in-camera as JPEG does, so if you really do not want to shoot RAW, shooting the highest quality JPEG is as sensible.<br>

____</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please. Nobody needs to justify anything here, but acting like RAW is an inferior choice because you can't be bothered with the conversion process is really not a very strong argument. If you want convenience over quality, fine. There is nothing wrong with that. If you're happy with JPEG, perfect. But people not wanting to throw away data at the very first oppurtunity, do they need to seek apologies for doing something quite sane?</p>

<p>A lateral thought: I am a predominantly RAW shooter. However by shooting RAW aren't we wasting the Expeed or Digic processing engines for which we have paid at least 20% of camera cost?</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why the heck are you wanting to convert to DNG? I didn't think anyone did that anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

There a number of <strong>significant advantages</strong> to converting to DNG so maybe you are unaware of them or the case that a number of users convert to DNG to use them. As a start, you can read about the advantages here:

 

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

 

Since that piece was written, the DNG spec <strong>continues to evolve and provide more advantages!</strong> One can embed multiple DNG profiles into the container. A real plus for those of us building and using multiple DNG profiles. In addition, the latest version allows a significant performance advantage in terms of loading Fast Preview data and allowing us to completely stop using the rolling ACR cache that is limited in size. For those that want to reduce a large amount of disk space for images that they might feel don’t need the full benefit of raw capture, but with far more editing headroom than a JPEG or TIFF, there is a new lossy compression option.

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>However by shooting RAW aren't we wasting the Expeed or Digic processing engines for which we have paid at least 20% of camera cost?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I’d have rather spent my money on a true raw histogram on the LCD. And if you find the raw to rendered process you produce superior in either or both quality and preference over the image appearance, then why use such in-camera processing. <br>

IF we’re paying 20% of the cost for that, we’re getting ripped off. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I downloaded the program, took a raw, converted it to a DNG file and tried opening in CS. It told me it was an incorrect type of file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something is wrong here, can you provide a step by step process? Are you opening from within Photoshop and when you point to the DNG, does the popup file type show <em>Camera Raw</em>?<br>

What settings did you apply for the preferences in the DNG converter? </p>

<p>Andrew, it's been a long time since I heard someone advice converting to dng. You're right, that's kind of a dated article and things have certainly moved on in the digital darkroom since it was written. Brian, in his second sentence of his thread, states that he likes to use Nikon software and is why I asked him why the heck wants to convert to dng. Does Nikon software open dng's yet? I was one of the last hold-outs that converted to dng as everyone I knew stopped long before me. To balance things out in an objective manner for us, do you have an article on the disadvantages of converting to dng?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, it's been a long time since I heard someone advice converting to dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are we to take this as saying you are not keeping up on technology?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're right, that's kind of a dated article and things have certainly moved on in the digital darkroom since it was written.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, as I pointed out, since the article was written, there are even <strong>more advantages</strong> to using DNG.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Brian, in his second sentence of his thread, states that he likes to use Nikon software and is why I asked him why the heck wants to convert to dng</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s not at all how I read it! He states he uses Photoshop and <strong>can’t</strong> use ACR hence the advise about DNG. I see no preference but rather a demand put upon him at this point he use Nikon software.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon software open dng's yet?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doubt it, don’t really care as I don’t use it. But I suspect if enough Nikon users pushed for support of the format, which is actually quite easy to do from an engineering standpoint, and would cost Nikon nothing in terms of licensing fees, maybe it would happen. I suspect not. The reason the two biggest camera companies don’t support DNG has nothing to do with cost or technology, or customer satisfaction and everthing to do with politics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was one of the last hold-outs that converted to dng as everyone I knew stopped long before me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should get to know some other people in the know about such things .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To balance things out in an objective manner for us, do you have an article on the disadvantages of converting to dng?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t. And it wouldn’t have to be a full article, only a sentence or two. The main disadvantage is that Nikon (and Canon) put proprietary metadata in their raw files which while DNG does allow the use of private tags for this, would currently be stripped out. So you could not use that metadata which currently is only useful (in a questionable way) within their own proprietary converters. <br /> But the question about balance is a bit like someone say “<em>My doctor said it is healthful to have a ideal BMI index. Can someone supply a balance by giving us an article that states it is better to be obese</em>”. IOW, a silly request. There are far, far more advantages to DNG than disadvantages. Certainly for any user who isn’t forced to use the manufacturers raw converters of which I suspect, compared to just Camera Raw/Lightroom and including Capture 1 and Aperture is far greater in number. And again, there is no reason why the manufacturers can’t support DNG. Better yet, a switch on the camera that would write DNG to our cards. We have a switch that provides raw or JPEG, it would be quite easy to have a third setting labelled DNG. Private tags and all!</p>

<p>I know some Pentax models allow saving to DNG format option, but I don't know if they're implementing the latest version with more advantages Andrew points out. Wonder if you can convert a camera source DNG to the newer version.</p>

<p>Thanks BTW Andrew for the heads up on the newer DNG converter especially the part about faster previews overriding ACR's limited preview cache. I'm going to have to do some reading. </p>

<p>Is the newer DNG version only usable with the latest Adobe CS versions? Can you just update the converter and edit the DNG in earlier versions of CS as far back as the first? This is what would be important to know for the OP.</p>

<p>DNG is supported by Adobe® Photoshop® CS6, CS5, CS4, CS3, CS2, and CS, as well as Photoshop Elements 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, and all versions of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® software.<br /><a href="https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html">https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html</a></p>

<p>This book by Martin Ewing makes a good case for using a DNG workflow:</p>

<p>Lightroom 3: Streamlining Your Digital Photography Process<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047060705X/">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047060705X/</a></p>

<p>And to a somewhat lesser extent this one does also:</p>

<p>The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers <br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321680707/">http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321680707/</a><br /><br /></p>

 

<p>Thanks for the links, Richard.</p>

<p>But are the <strong>newest, latest improvements</strong> to DNG specs Andrew mentioned supported by legacy apps? That's what I want to know without having to drudge through the tomes of info you linked to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is the newer DNG version only usable with the latest Adobe CS versions? Can you just update the converter and edit the DNG in earlier versions of CS as far back as the first?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure if the newer spec will work with an older version but I think it will. And yes, you can always update the older spec with the newer one using the DNG converter or within Lightroom.<br>

In terms of reading up on the new features, this is a decent start:<br>

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57371809-1/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/</p>

<p><em>but acting like RAW is an inferior choice because you can't be bothered with the conversion process is really not a very strong argument.</em><br>

I for one have never suggested raw is inferior, just I don't need that extra it gives balanced by the complexity of the process and slowness in processing time. The messages since my last about DNG support my attitude I think :-)</p>

<p>IF you have the right tools like Lightroom and know how to use them handling/processing raw is no more time consuming nor complex than dealing with a JPEG especially when the later isn’t perfect.</p>

<p>i guess most importantly, my nikon and adobe software natively support my nefs, but both software does not support dng files. dng simply takes too much time. time to convert, time to back up both original and the dng. then both will appear in my library search results, causing more time and attention. i tried to do dng at ingestion of my files, i tried it at the end of editing...i just woke up last year and asked myself "why" as when you make lots and lots of data every month, it made little sense for me be duplicating it again into adobe's dng format all the while i'm hesitant of putting my archiving scheme in Adobe's hands. i asked around to other working photog's and i was the only one that bothered doing dng and then stopped last year myself. today, with one raw format, my work flow is easier, faster, and I have less to back up. i wish i quit dng earlier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>all the while i'm hesitant of putting my archiving scheme in Adobe's hands.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But not Nikon’s? FWIW, I’ve been doing this stuff long enough to have been severely burned with proprietary data formats. Kodak PhotoCD, captures from DCS cameras etc. The problem with proprietary formats unlike documented formats that require no licensing to use is the possibility that a company will no longer support that data (or go out of business). There are a larger number of products that can handle the open data format. Same is true for PSD vs. TIFF. Far, far more products can handle a TIFF than PSD and everything we can do with a PSD we can do with a TIFF other than duotone support. If you code a product to handle PSD, you have to pay Adobe a licensing fee to do so. TIFF (and DNG), you don’t. </p>

<p>The time it takes Lightroom to import and convert to DNG isn’t significant at least for me and many others. The savings in disk space and the ability to store a far larger amount of important data into a single container is for many worthwhile. But if it doesn’t work for you, that’s cool. I just hope years down the line, you don’t get burned or lose some valuable data. But you have to put your faith into the data system be it Adobe or Nikon. </p>

<p>Lastly, when we allow manufacturers to force their proprietary camera data on us, they force us, at least initially to use their raw converters as we wait for all other companies to re-engineer the format and update their converters. And yet that never happens when we set the switch for JPEG. </p>

<p>The primary potential drawback to converting from camera raw to DNG was an issue in this discussion: <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WQjJ"><strong>Converting DNG files back to camera raw</strong></a><br>

Even if we choose to convert camera native or proprietary raw to DNG, it may still be a good idea to retain the original raw files.</p>

<p>To run converted file using DNG 7.1 with Photoshop CS you need to set a compatability option. From the DNG 7.1 Read Me file:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>DNG Converter 5.4 and subsequent updates include new DNG Compatibility conversion options. These choices help address the additional options available with the new DNG 1.3 Specification:<br>

Camera Raw 2.4 and<strong> later</strong>: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 2.4 (Photoshop CS) and later, and Lightroom 1.0 and later<br>

• Camera Raw 4.1 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 4.1 (Photoshop CS3) and later, and Lightroom 1.1 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions.depending on the camera model<br>

• Camera Raw 4.6 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 4.6 (Photoshop CS3)and later, and Lightroom 2.1 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions,depending on the camera model<br>

• Camera Raw 5.4 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 5.4 (Photoshop CS4) and later, and Lightroom 2.4 and later. The DNG file will often be readable by earlier versions, depending on the camera model<br>

• Custom:<br />o Backward Version Option: DNG 1.1, DNG 1.3 (default 1.3)<br />o Checkbox: Linear (demosaiced) (default unchecked)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for that thorough DNG compatibility rundown, Brooks.</p>

<p>I was expecting a much shorter list for such a standardized format.</p>

<p>I guess the devil is in the details with regards to having options available that work with specific versions of Raw converters. Wonder what other options will get turned on/off, added or taken away with future Raw converters and DNG specifications. Good grief, people, it's just a picture!</p>

<p>Anyone here get the impression "specification" is a loaded word?</p>

<p><strong>"But you have to put your faith into the data system be it Adobe or Nikon."</strong></p>

<p>Not for me at the moment, Andrew. With a nef, I'm not at a fork in the road with a forced choice of "Adobe or Nikon" as the nef user has options/choices. With a dng, you do choose a which fork in the road, and for me, there is no logical reason to be doing dng at this time. You can paint it anyway you want it, but there's no escaping the fact that converting to dng is a gamble. For my work and my bread butter, it didn't matter much doing dng as everyone is adobe user I deal with and I and just went with the flow.</p>

<p><strong>"I’ve been doing this stuff long enough..."</strong></p>

<p>What stuff is that, exactly?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not for me at the moment, Andrew. With a nef</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You realize the Nef you can access and read today, you might not tomorrow. That’s exactly what happened with the large number of PhotoCD image pack files and DCS camera files I had from Kodak. Kodak is still in business! And when there were in better business shape years ago, those files were still unreadable. Because they simply stopped supporting a way to access the data as newer computer operating systems and software evolved. I have to keep really old hardware and software around to access this data, or just render them out and live with the rendering. Not ideal considering those neg’s are my negs. </p>

<p>Kind of like having a pile of film neg’s and no enlarger’s or chemicals around to process them. Not a good position to be in and worse, not at all a necessary situation with digital. We may never be able to print dye transfers any more. But there’s little reason why the 1’s and zero’s of my older raws and PCD’s are so damn difficult to process. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>With a dng, you do choose a which fork in the road, and for me, there is no logical reason to be doing dng at this time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Then don’t</strong>. But the idea that one manufacturer’s proprietary file format provides more, not less options for accessing the data simply isn’t historically the case. I have an openly documented format that takes up less space on disk, allows me to embed all kinds of useful data within it, even allows me to build pretty good JPEG data of the current rendering I can extract worse case. You don’t get any such advantages in your Nef. About the only advantage would be if you just had to use Nikon’s converter because Nikon refuses to allow you, their customer the option of DNG. And if Nikon would stop playing politics and put their customers best interest in mind, they’d stop this silly proprietary nonsense or at least provide a DNG switch and then embed their proprietary tags into it, which they can do. <br>

Proprietary raw formats are a disservice to photographers. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>What stuff is that, exactly?</p>

</blockquote>

Go read my bio. I’ve been working with Photoshop since about two months after it first shipped in 1990. I was shooting with the very first Kodak DCS camera before anyone knew what raw files were. I was producing PhotoCD scans when the very first shop in the nation (ZZYZX) offered the service. IOW, I’m a pretty old fart at this game.

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Thanks Andrew. I'll give it a read and some thought later when I have a minute as I just hit import on 16 gig of nef's :) and shoot again in 2 hours...</p>

<p>I'd like to stick with Adobe, so can CS5 import my RAW files from my D800 or do I need CS6?</p>