An downside to using Adobe's digital negative DNG format?

Hi. I just got back from the Grand Canyon. Thanks to photo.net folks I got

some nice shots. Most were taken on a camera whose maker is no longer in

business (Konica Minolta). I am wondering if I should convert my KM raw files

to Adobe's digital negative DNG format. Since my camera has not been made for

several years I am concerned that future software may not support its RAW format.

 

Are there any downsides to the DNG format? Does anybody use it with success?

 

Thanks.

Great question I just signed on to ask about DNG...Thanks for asking and maybe someone will have a great answer!

 

Kevin

Yo uare absolutely right to be concerned about this. I've been using DNG as my archival raw

format with Nikon, Leica and Canon Raw files since last Spring. No downsides that I've

encountered.

I would be inclined to use a lossless 'standard' format like TIFF versus something new and yet unproven like DNG. JMHO...

Checkout Peter Krogh's site www.thedambook.com on DNG. Lots of good information there.

Just a quick note on Richard's response... While DNG is still a newer raw format and TIFF has

proven itself fairly worthy over the years, the two aren't directly comparable. TIFF isn't

actually a raw file format.

 

As for whether it's worth converting those files or not, I would highly recommend it since you

probably will run into issues down the line with those KM raw files.

If you don't mind about the extra space on your HD, DVDs, etc., you can also direct Adobe DNG Converter to embed the original photo, and eventually you can extract it later on with the same Adobe DNG Conv.. It may be a convenient way to keep both the original and the corresponding DNG.

I recommend the DNG format to all photographers, and especially to you, Josh. Adobe's

reasoning behind creating the DNG format was to avoid problems just like yours.<br ?>

see:

<br ?><br ?>

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html">Adobe DNG</a>

<br ?><br ?>

The DNG format is an open specification, a nonproprietary file format - anyone who wants

to can create a DNG importer, converter, viewer - whatever. Adobe has taken the lead on

creating and supporting software for DNG's but you can download the spec from the

adobe site, write a program to view DNG's and not have to pay anyone anything.

<br ?><br ?>

As far as being a new format - yes, it is. But it has been battle tested since introduction by

a wide range of really, really picky professional photographers who analyze (in sometimes

excruciating detail) every aspect of their images. I've yet to hear any substantive concerns.

(if anyone knows of any, please let me know - yes, I've read Stuart Nixon's complaints at

openraw.org, and if you follow the comments you will see Peter Krogh (photographer),

Thomas Knoll and Kevin Conner from Adobe all make appearances on the thread and

address his concerns - for those wishing to read the article here is a direct link -

<a href="http://openraw.org/node/1482">openraw</a>)

<br ?><br ?>

<i>"TIFF isn't actually a raw file format."</i>

<p>

And neither is DNG. It's been <b>proposed</b> by Adobe that camera manufacturers adopt DNG as a RAW format but so far none have.

<p>

Converting from any current RAW format to DNG has the same shortcomings and is no different than converting to any other lossless format. That is, the resulting data will not be what was captured 'in camera' but rather is a modified/interpreted/converted version of that data. The accuracy of the DNG file will be dependent on the programming of the conversion program.

<p>

To rephrase that somewhat, DNG will <b>not</b> be a RAW format until such time as the camera manufacturers do it 'in camera' at the time the information is extracted from the sensor and placed in memory.

"And neither is DNG. It's been proposed by Adobe that camera manufacturers adopt DNG

as a RAW format but so far none have."

 

Leica has. Additionally Phase One, Capture One, along with Adobe's Lightroom , Bridge 1,

Bridge 2, ACR 3 and ACR 4 and possibly other processing programs allow you to save in

the DNG envelope.

 

The problem with the various camera manufacturers who do not so far use DNG as a raw

capture format is that they all want to put some of the information up non documented or

uncommon data forks ( let's call this their "secret sauce") to use with their raw processing

programs. When (And I really don't think it is an "if") a camera manufacturer decides to

stop supporting an older camera's raw data format, or goes out of business (Minolta >

Konica-Minolta > Sony anyone?) The photographer will be in a Dr. Strangelovian situation.

If you remember the movie, the Russians built an automated Doomsday counter-attack

system but failed to tell the rest of the world about it --and there was that one SAC

general

who "went, you know, a little crazy in the head, Dimity". Meaning stuff happens and what

good is a system of data writing if you don't anyone else that you've written it that way or

where you have put it?

To add my 2 cents to Ellis' list... Pentax's K10D uses the DNG format.<p>

Using Adobe's DNG converter one can save many of the RAW formats that Adobe Photoshop recognizes<br> and convert it into DNG, or DNG + RAW

in which the original RAW data is kept.<br>

Of course this means a larger file.<p>

BTW, one of the advantages of converting to DNG format is that its files are smaller than the RAW files they've been converted from.<p>

<i>And neither is DNG. It's been proposed by Adobe that camera manufacturers adopt DNG as a RAW format but so far none have.</i><p>

 

Ricoh uses it with the GR-Digital. Try to get the facts straight before posting.

<i>"Leica has."

<p>

"Pentax's K10D uses the DNG format."

<p>

"Ricoh uses it with the GR-Digital."

</i>

<p>

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

>>> And neither is DNG.

 

Wrong. It is a RAW format - makes no difference whether zero or 50 manufacturers have

adopted it. TIFF, on the other hand, consisting of RGB data samples ***after*** Bayer

de-mosaicing conversion to render an image, is not a RAW format. There is a huge

difference...

Thanks for the responses. Getting past the debate on whether or not DNG is a legitimate RAW format, I get the impression that nobody has documented any meaningful image related problems that were caused by converting to DNG.

 

The loss of KM has convinced me to convert to DNG. Every time I use my A2, I get a tear in my eye thinking about how KM went under. This camera, over two years old, is a marvel. It does just about anything that a digital SLR does except accept different lenses. (OK focusing is not as fast, and an optical viewfinder is always better, but, It's One Million mega-pixel viewfinder can be used to manually focus accurately.) I can screw a filter or hood onto the lens, and it takes supplemental flash units.

My approach to DNG is "wait and see." If Adobe is able to make it viable (whether through advantageous technical superiority or market bullying) DNG could be a useful "future-proof" way to archive raw files. But if it doesn't catch on, DNG could prove more transient than the proprietary formats it's meant to replace or supplement. It's too early to bet on it, which I suppose is part of its problems.

 

<p>If you have a wildly popular camera (e.g., Canon 350D or Nikon D70) it's probably not worth converting raw files to DNG. The manufacturer and/or Adobe Camera Raw is likely to support it indefinitely (but look what happened when Canon tried to discontinue D30 support in DPP). But DNG may be a useful backup if you have an orphaned camera (e.g., anything from Konica-Minolta) or one with dubious market prospects (e.g., Sigma). If I had one of those, I would convert my raw files to DNG and archive them alongside the original files (yes, you can embed the original files in a DNG but I think it would be better to keep them separate).

 

<p>An even better strategy is to archive the best output you can get from your favorite raw converter as an uncompressed 16-bit TIFF file (alongside your raw and DNG files). That loses some of the advantages of a raw file, but it is likely to be readable after both raw and DNG become obsolete.

 

<p>(I have lengthier comments on DNG and various file formats <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/comment9.htm">here</a>.)