Embed Original Raw File option

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I am using Adobe DNG Converter 6.2. There is an option for from <strong>Change Preferences</strong> there is <strong>Embed Original Raw File</strong>. I want to ask whats the benefit of that and what I am losing if I won't select it.</p>

<p>Thanks in anticipation.</p>

<p>Riz</p>

<p>I have a fish-eye lens for my Olympus system. Their app has the built in ability to de-fish the shot. It will only perform that on their raw file.</p>

<p>By embedding the original inside the dng, I can pull it out and process it on that app that is not much good for anything else.</p>

<p>That's my only need so far.</p>

<p>The benefit is that you still have access to the unprocessed file from the camera. Peter has a use for that. I don't, I am happy with my dng raw files. If I was to embed the original file in them they would be about twice the size. There is a prestigious British wildlife photography competition that has a requirement that if you make the short list, then you must be able to show them the raw file as it came from the camera, a dng will not do, unless that is the only format raw file your camera produces. So having access to the embedded original would be very handy then. </p>

<p>I would pass on that option and instead, just back up the original proprietary raws elsewhere. If you embed the raw in the DNG, its naturally much larger in size. All edits you make in a converter is small, metadata instructions that are embedded into the DNG. If you do this often (and as you should, back up often), it will now take much longer because the DNG is that much larger. </p>

<p>Why are you creating more work for your self and converting to DNG?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why are you creating more work for your self and converting to DNG?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Here we go again... Probably due to the advantages of DNG (http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf) and disadvantages of proprietary raw files. <br>

Every time someone converts to DNG, Mr. K loses a penny or something. </p>

 

<p>Speaking of making pennies, a pro Adobe mag and someone like Andrew that makes their living waving Adobe's flag, is the last resource I'd seek for an objective opinion on DNG.</p>

<p>Here's one great reason just posted. NX2 or LR3?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00XmuV</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of making pennies, a pro Adobe mag and someone like Andrew that makes their living waving Adobe's flag, is the last resource I'd seek for an objective opinion on DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice touch but <strong>wrong again!</strong> Aside from writing one article for Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf) no other checks and hardly a company I make a living from. I am an alpha tester and have been a beta since Photoshop 2.5. That’s an unpaid but highly desirable and difficult position to achieve.</p>

<p>But better would be if you would simply <strong>stay OT instead of hijacking yet another thread</strong>. No where did the OP ask about whether to use DNG or not, but about an <strong>option</strong> for using DNG. It would be refreshingly unlike you to stay OT and refrain from your rants on DNG and better yet, just start a new thread with a title like “<em>Why I think DNG is useless</em>” then most of us familiar with your tactics could ignore the post entirely.</p>

<p>Riz, this is why I wrote “<em>Here we go again</em>”, Mr, K (whoever he is, whatever he really does for a living, hard to believe its photography based on the one image he shows) has some unknown agenda and has a history of hijacking threads like he just did here. Best to ignore much of what he writes.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Me? Hy-jacking? Time out, Mr. I asked an on-topic question that wasn't directed to you. If you ignored my post, this thread wouldn't be de-railing. Again. For some reason, you can't leave your dirty laundry at the door and instead, take your ill feelings for me from thread to thread and ankle-bite like a pest. It spoils it for the innocent. For the sake of the community, grow up and ignore me.</p>

<p>People that actually shoot, post some great opinions here.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00X0B7</p>

Googling: "converting to DNG is great" (without the quotes)

 

Returns 332,000 hits... :)

<p>Lol</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here we go again... Probably due to the advantages of DNG...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which, according to the linked article, amounts to: minutely smaller files; non-proprietary, vendor-neutral raw file format; and embedded edit history rather than sidecars. Even then, the non-proprietary nature of DNG is specious because only Adobe tools understand the operations I performed on the image.</p>

<p>I use LightRoom to mange my images. The raw CR2 files are stored unmolested where Canon's utilities imported them. LR stores my edit history in its catalog (not in separate sidecar files), and maintains the 1:1 pixel "previews" in its own arcane corner on the disk. There is no functional difference in my workflow between maintaining the raw image files as native CR2 versus DNG, except I don't spend time converting first to DNG.</p>

<p>A stock photo business or news desk might better benefit from standardizing on a vendor-neutral image file format. Since I, and likely the vast majority of the readers here, have only one raw image format to contend with, the remaining benefits of converting to DNG are minor at best. The minor benefit, obtained at real cost of storage space and time spent converting, hardly warrants the character attack.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even then, the non-proprietary nature of DNG is specious because only Adobe tools understand the operations I performed on the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so. There are quite a number of non Adobe app’s that handle DNG and anyone who wishes to understand the format and use it is free to do so. There is zero cost (other than small engineering). The same is true of TIFF (DNG is a variant of TIFF). </p>

<p>Only Adobe tools understand the raw processing operations of <strong>their</strong> proprietary engines, DNG, TIFF or proprietary raw. Bibble, C1, Aperture etc, all fall into the same camp. Its the processing operation that’s proprietary, not the format. </p>

<p>Users complain that they purchase a new camera system and can’t use any 3rd party raw converters despite the format because the data is proprietary! We all have to wait on the above companies hacking the new format so we can process this data. Months later, that’s usually the case. But if we had the ability to pick between the proprietary raw or have the new camera write a DNG, we could process that data the minute the camera is released IF we pick DNG. Just as we can get a JPEG out of the camera the day its released. So all users can potentially benefit from a non proprietary format as they currently do when they ask for a JPEG instead of a raw. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Googling: "converting to DNG is great" (without the quotes)<br>

Returns 332,000 hits... :)</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>LOL indeed. The “Google stuff without quotes” a technique some use to backup their specious belief systems was discussed here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00XlgQ</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As for Google searches and then the numbers provided (as evidence to back up your point):<br>

Garrison is a transvestite: About 631,000 results <br />Garrison wears army boots: About 65,600 results <br />Andrew eats dog food: About 694,000 results <br />Apples cause impotence: About 193,000 results</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>Andrew, for what it's worth, I agree that all cameras should and one day probably will all write a vendor-neutral RAW format, perhaps DNG. The future benefit to me will be minimal, though, because I don't currently expend any time or effort in converting CR2 to DNG. I have no horse in that race. I commented only because I read your linked article with some expectation of enlightenment, and found mostly discussion that pertains to any RAW format, and Adobe workflow. The few small benefits of DNG versus vendor RAW didn't add up to a strong compelling case, for the way I work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR stores my edit history in its catalog (not in separate sidecar files), and maintains the 1:1 pixel "previews" in its own arcane corner on the disk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>FWIW, there are two 1:1 previews used. One is in the irdata file that is accessed in all modules <em>expect</em> Develop. Develop instead uses the ACR cache. If you lose or overwrite the ACR cache (it has a size limit just updated in LR3), its pretty fast to regenerate but again, its not the same as the 1:1 in other modules. The previews in the other modules are JPEGs that can be embedded into the DNG. If some other software product which reads the DNG format wants, it can provide the identical preview rendering in that app. That’s not going to happen if you use proprietary raws and want to somehow even see the rendering you specified in LR. You can also print pretty high quality images from the embedded JPEG depending on how you set the DNG preferences. I’ve seen 11x17’s from said JPEG that were quite excellent. A proprietary raw outside of your converter of choice isn’t going to print anything like what you were working with within your raw converter of choice. </p>

<p>As for the time converting to DNG, yes it takes time. But I do this <em>while</em> importing into LR <em>while</em> building high quality previews, adding metadata etc. IOW, that process is slow anyway. Its one of those “you can pay me now or pay me later” in terms of preview generation, so conversion to DNG, which is multi threaded may make this process a bit longer, but I’m not sitting in front of LR when importing anyway. I don’t want to have to go about editing the picks and waiting for a preview to update for each image to see if its sharp so I get all this time consuming processing done while I’m doing something else. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If some other software product which reads the DNG format wants, it can provide the identical preview rendering in that app. That’s not going to happen if you use proprietary raws and want to somehow even see the rendering you specified in LR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but that has never been an issue for me. I use LR to browse and view the photos. I'm not sure which came first. ;) If I need an image outside of LR, I just export it in any one of the several ways it can.</p>

<p>For sure, LR is the best tool I have for browsing, organizing, and viewing photos. Poking about in the file system is just so Old School! By the same token, even though DNG is an open standard and other apps might be able to display them, I still choose to use LR first by preference. Isn't that enough of a win for Adobe? I feel I have to ask this, since there's more than a little zeal and evangelism in your writing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, but that has never been an issue for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As yet. But suppose for whatever reason, you didn’t have access to LR. Or LR ceased to exist and while you could use another raw converter no the original raw data (or DNG), you wanted a rendered version of what you did when you had LR. Now its possible this will never happen. But its possible it could. If you have a rendered JPEG inside the DNG, its just another option. Its not the sole reason one would or should select DNG over a proprietary raw, but its another feather in DNG’s cap. Like the fact if you apply a DNG profile to an image, its embedded in the DNG. It always lives with the raw data. Not the case if you don’t use DNG and for whatever reason, you were working on a copy of LR which did not have access to the DNG profile. Again, the embedding of the DNG profile inside the DNG is not the sole reason one would adopt it but its another feather in the DNG cap. Like smaller size, no sidecar and for me, a format that isn’t solely dependent on a proprietary means of decoding the data. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't that enough of a win for Adobe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not about a win for Adobe. They don’t get any more $$ if you use LR with the proprietary data or with DNG. They don’t benefit more if you save a PSD or a TIFF. They do benefit if some other software company wants to access that PSD, the company has buy a license but not with TIFF. TIFF like DNG is an open format. The winner is the end user IF and when they can’t access the proprietary data, something that has burned me in the short history of digital imaging more than a few times (Kodak PhotoCD and Kodak DCS raw data being two examples). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the time converting to DNG, yes it takes time. But I do this <em>while</em> importing into LR <em>while</em> building high quality previews, adding metadata etc.<br>

You can also print pretty high quality images from the embedded JPEG depending on how you set the DNG preferences</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although I don't have LR, I too started to convert my CR2s to DNGs (in Bridge's Photo Downloader) while transfering them from a memory card to a hard drive. What other choices do you make wrt this process? -- though it might be a good idea to validate mine:</p>

<ul>

<li>JPEG Preview: Medium Size (it doesn't provide pixel dimension, but figured 'med' should do for an on-screen viewing, which is what I assumed this was for, rather than for printing from embedded JPEGs)</li>

<li>Compressed (lossless) -- since it's lossless, though this would at least partially offset the increased file size due to the other options selected without any quality penalty</li>

<li>Image Conversion Method: Preserve Raw Image (the explanation about the original "mosaic" and the conversion into linear data being one way process made me think this would be a better option)</li>

<li>Embed Original Raw File (just to be on the safe side ;)</li>

</ul>

<p>Does this make sense?</p><div></div>

<p>Medium JPEG should produce a pretty acceptable print to around 8x10 from tests I’ve seen. IOW, its far more data than simply for use to screen. <br>

I dont use Embed raw, I’d advise you to instead just save off the proprietary raws to a DVD or other drive for access if you think you’ll ever need them. You can use this option but each DNG will be nearly twice the size because of course, you are embedded the original raw into the DNG. </p>

<p>Thanks Andrew, point taken. Suspect saving original raw + DNG without embedded raw separately would take up a similar amount of memory as a single DNG with embedded original raw, but from the standpoint of additional build-in redundancy, it's indeed better to save CR2 files separately to a different drive, and of course smaller files should also be faster to work with.</p>

<p>raw vs dng, without quotes, brings about 863,000 results. perhaps just the link showing the results is sufficient for making up ones own mind.</p>

<p>http://www.google.ca/search?q=raw+vs+dng&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a</p>

<p>Found some info on the resolution of JPEG previews embedded in DNGs @ <a href="http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#previews">http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm#previews</a></p>

<blockquote>

<h4>Embedded previews</h4>

<p>A DNG file can hold a number of JPEG previews. In DNGs created with ACR 3.4 or the 3.4 DNG Converter there can be up to 3 previews, with the following sizes: longest side = 256; longest side = 1024; and full image size. For option "Preview = None", the 1st is included. For option "Preview = Medium Size", the 1st and 2nd are included. For option "Preview = Full Size", all of them are included. Using the "Full Size" preview may make a compressed DNG file about 12% larger.<br>

<br />These JPEG previews are created by applying the editing and settings information of the raw converter and converting to sRGB, and so are equivalent to colour-managed JPEGs created as derivative files. Peter Krogh points out that large high-quality prints can be made from the full image size preview. These previews can be used by various viewers and asset management products, and in future will therefore help both with management and with reviewing settings. For many purposes, for example web galleries, quick prints, and email, extracting one of the previews will be as useful as (re)converting the raw image itself, and much faster.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>raw vs dng, without quotes, brings about 863,000 results. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah yes, the continuing saga of using Google searches to attempt to back up specious claims finds another thread. </p>

<p>Garrison eats dog food<br>

About 101,000 results</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter Krogh points out that large high-quality prints can be made from the full image size preview. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I’ve seen the prints from DNG previews of Peters and they are quite impressive in terms of quality. </p>