RAW vs. TIFF

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by brian steinberger, Jul 4, 2012.

  1. I just received my D800 and see I can shoot in TIFF format now instead of just RAW or JPEG. I'm really enjoying shooting in TIFF. I like to open my files directly into PS and work that way. With RAW I have to open them in a Nikon software I am totally unfamiliar with, then usually just end up wanting to open them in PS to work on them but can't.
    What is the real advantage of RAW files? Especially vs. TIFF. I find that on my card the TIFF files actually take up more space then RAW. This doesn't make sense to me.
    Someone help educate me please!
    Thanks!
     
  2. SCL

    SCL

    Long story, but to cut to the quick, you can open your RAW (NEF) files in PS...you may need to download Adobe DNG converter, but it's a piece of cake. However, if you do use Nikon software to open your RAW (NEF) files, you will have slightly better control over certain features Nikon designed in their firmware, you can then save to TIFF if you want and open in PS. The advantage of RAW (NEF) files simply is that they contain all the data one can extract from the file, whereas TIFF has already made some modifications. there's a lot more, but this is just a hint...there should be more in the learning tab.
     
  3. lwg

    lwg

    The RAW files take up less space because only one color is stored per pixel. Then the RAW converter does it's Bayer demosaicing thing to create a color image. Essentially the color of a pixel needs to be determined by looking at the neighboring pixels. With TIFF or JPG files that is done in the camera and the result is stored on the card. At that point each pixel contains three color values.
    The real advantage of RAW is you have much more control over how the demosaicing process. This lets you set the whitepoint and other settings after the fact. Essentially you now have control over much more of the process, and the results can be huge. You can recover slightly blown out highlights, and correct exposure errors with ease in RAW, whereas using TIFF or JPG the data gone. You also can stop worrying about setting adjustments for color and contrast in the field, which to me is a huge benefit. Shooting video with the camera shows me how much I never want to shoot TIFF or JPG again, since you need to make many setting changes to get the image just right, depending on the light.
    I recommend you shoot in RAW and use Camera Raw as part of the import into Photoshop process. No need to use Nikon's software. The Camera RAW converter is very straightforward to use.
     
  4. RAW images are as close to negatives as you can get with digital. When you open and adjust RAW images (or print from negatives), including exposure and color balance, the original is not changed. If you save the results, you save TIFF or JPEG files as the derivative of these changes. Each time you edit a TIFF file, you discard some information. Since TIFF files must be converted from RAW files, even if done in camera, and they are larger, the process is by necessity slower.
    RAW files are smaller than TIFF because some of the information used to convert them to another format is contained in firmware, including color information according the the location of each pixel relative to the Bayer filter.
     
  5. Wow, this is scientific stuff! L.G where can I get Camera RAW? And do I have to use a new version on PS? I'm still running CS because it has everything I need to edit photos.
    Also, would there be any advantage to shooting TIFF compared to RAW? What about the possibility of being able to open the files in the future?
    Thanks
     
  6. One big difference is that TIFF images are 8-bit per channel (24-bit) color. In RAW NEF you get the full 14-bit color the D800 is capable of (see page 84 of the English version of the D800 manual).
    Does anyone know why Nikon chose to limit TIFF pictures? I believe the format is capable of storing full 16-bit per channel color values.
    To answer the second question, you can use the latest free DNG converter from Adobe to convert you NEF files to DNG files; then process the DNG files in CS.
     
  7. [Deleted duplicate]
     
  8. Thanks Brooks. Is there any difference in converting NEF files to DNG and editing this way rather than using the newest PS to convert?
     
  9. The newest PS will give you considerably more functions editing the NEF files. Adobe Camera Raw is fast becoming a full fledged editing program in its own right.
     
  10. TIFF or JPEG = a cooked chocolate cake. if you find the cake to taste too much or not enough chocolate, your only option is to add some creamy vanilla or chocolate topping. you cant make the cake itself taste something else. Same with those 2 format; you cant change what they are, and if you find the color balance to be too cold or too warm you can only add or subtract info by in both case adding a filter over it.. not the same as changing the real info. If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.
    RAW = a mix of ingredient in a bowl.. a chocolate cake in making. if it taste too much or not enough, simply add some cocoa powder, add more sugar, basically change the recipe before you cooked it. no creamy topping needed. Same with the raw format; you have all the flexibility of correcting the image like color balance, temperature, and even get back details you think you have lost.
    I don't see the point of shooting TIFF vs a JPEG, as it is the same cooked version of your image without the compression..
    Better shoot jpeg vs tif since it take less space on your card and hard drive and its also faster to record your image on your card, and better shoot raw vs jpeg or tif to get the full potential of your expensive camera... you have a good camera, start using it correctly, and learn your way with Lightroom / Aperture or whatever you might find interesting (Lightroom is for many, me included one of the best software for that purpose)
     
  11. lwg

    lwg

    You can download the DNG converter as someone has mentioned. However I would recommend looking at Lightroom. It's gotten significantly cheaper than it started out at, and more useful with the later versions. Then you could use that to open your files in your older version of Photoshop. Lightroom 4 is down to $133 at Amazon. There's also a 30 day trial from Adobe so you could test the process out for no charge.
    Also, it's not true that TIFF files lose info as you re-save them. That's only the case if you use JPG compression in the TIFF. I wouldn't do that, unless space is tight. But since you have the RAW image as a starting point it's a viable option.
    As to shooting TIFF instead of RAW, the only advantage is you can open it directly in an image editor without making any decisions. But from the way you described your workflow I see no advantages. For a product shot where you setup the lighting, and tweak the camera settings the TIFF could speed up the workflow in that you could transfer it directly to an art director. I've never shot this way, so I don't know for sure it would work out in practice.
     
  12. TIFF or JPEG = a cooked chocolate cake.​
    Yup. Plus not working with a raw means that you’ve given up one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire.
    So here again is the Adobe article that explains what you’re giving up:
    http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
     
  13. Patricks answer +1. And now I'm hungry.
     
  14. If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.
    That reads like an excuse not to take the photo properly in the first place.
    you have a good camera, start using it correctly
    This is the argument of the technician not the photographer. It is the image that is important not how you get it.
    one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire.
    What a load of nonsense, I never shoot raw and still get the results I want if I take the photos properly in the first place.
     
  15. If you have a blwon out sky, good chance that the sky is gone for real with no data.
    That reads like an excuse not to take the photo properly in the first place.
    you have a good camera, start using it correctly
    This is the argument of the technician not the photographer. It is the image that is important not how you get it.
    one major aspect of photography; rendering the image as you so desire.
    What a load of nonsense, I never shoot raw and still get the results I want if I take the photos properly in the first place.​
    JC, I do a lot of JPEG-only shooting, but I wouldn't make any of those assertions or advise a beginner to do the same... at least not without cautioning them that data losses are irretrievable.
    It isn't a matter of taking the photo properly in the first place, or being a technician vs. a photographer. As with color slide film, it's simply a fact that some situations exceed the range of the capabilities of JPEGs. In some situations there is no single correct exposure that will capture the full range from shadow to sky and allow room for tweaking without risking ugly posterizing and artifacts. Even tricks such as in-camera dynamic range compensation for JPEGs come at some cost.
     
  16. In terms of a sky being blown out, much as to do with whether the data is raw or JPEG. You can’t treat the two the same either. What appears to be a blown out sky in a JPEG could provide a boat load of data in the raw (assuming you exposed for JPEG and also captured a raw). People are amazed at what they think is raw’s ability to recover highlight data. The data was always there. If you blow out the raw data (sensor overload), it’s gone. But you could over expose for a JPEG which is really what you’d need for ideal raw exposure (see: http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html).
    If you capture raw, the LCD and JPEG (you capture with the raw or the embedded JPEG in the raw) are simply one rendering, interpreted by the camera. It doesn’t provide any useful data about the raw itself. An idealized exposure for raw will very likely produce a JPEG (or preview on the LCD) that looks blown out. The data is vastly, vastly different. The rendering is vastly different (one YOU control, one your camera controls).
    As Photographers we still have to understand exposure 101. But you would not treat transparency film, and it’s stated ISO and development as you would treat a color or B&W neg! You test each set of processes, then you can correctly expose for each. That’s the same with JPEG and raw.
     
  17. Thanks guys. These are some good responses. I am certainly no beginner in photography. I shot chromes for years so know all about metering for the highlights for chromes, and digital is no different. I spent the last 6 years shooting and developing and printing my own black and white work which I am continuing to do. However I took a hiatus from color work until a Nikon DSLR got to the point where it was atleast as good as 35mm. With the D800 it's there and a little beyond which is why I picked one up. Shooting chromes and sending film out and paying for drum scans gets very very old after a while, hence the reason to move to black and white work. But I'm used to old school Adobe CS and simple editing I used to do in say 2004. I'm enjoying shooting TIFFs in the D800 because I can just bring it into PS and work on it, like I've always done.
    BTW... I downloaded DNG converter and it doesn't work with CS. I understand a RAW file holding more information. I'm just a creature of habit and I hate having to spend money on software just to open a non-native file so that I can re-save it and open in PS to work on. I don't know. I'm still not sure.
     
  18. Brian ... you have struck one of my reasons for not using raw ... with your experience and the camera I am sure you will be very happy with tiff ... you are most certainly not a beginner being misled [ IMO ] by the raw camp as I originally thought :)
    I think raw has probably improved [ we now have 36Mp cameras and I have a 16Mp :) ] like everything else in digital photography but when I tried it a few years back it did nothing for me that I couldn't get from my jpg files and seemed an involved can of worms.
    LEX ... what you loose from shooting jpg as opposed to tiff or raw is not noticable in the normal run of events, exposing correctly or deliberately erring on the safe [under] side in normal situations and I gave good advice for a newbie to not get tangled up with raw. There is a recent thread where a newbie is trying to work in manual before they have got to walking, another example of mis-info picked up by a newbie.
    Newbies are continually searching for silver bullets and raw is definitely not one of these. Really the silver bullet is to trust their camera until they know when and how to over-ride it.
    ANDREW ... I repeat if you expose correctly you don't have to rescue or reveal information from burnt out skies ... seems almost you are advocating for the careless?
     
  19. ANDREW ... I repeat if you expose correctly you don't have to rescue or reveal information from burnt out skies ... seems almost you are advocating for the careless?​
    I suggest you read the article I referenced. You’ll see that exposing for raw is one thing, exposing for JPEG is different. IF you expose for raw, the initial rendering you see (based on a JPEG) will appear over exposed, IT IS NOT.
    Over exposure is simply that! If you expose raw and blow out highlight data you wish to retain, you over exposed. If you expose for a JPEG, you are effectively under exposing for the raw data. You can’t treat the two the same way (one is a linear encoded data, the other is gamma encoded).
     
  20. If you're going to work in tiff format edit in ACR set to 16bit/ProphotoRGB anyway.
    I'm currently going back to edit some old jpegs I shot before I switched to Raw exclusively. I'm amazed at how much easier and faster it is to edit them in ACR over Photoshop. Don't know what features are available in CS version of ACR but the curves tool both Parametric and Point are very powerful time savers along with HSL, Split Tone and Fill sliders.
    ACR's interface has all the tools in one panel cluster layout so there's no opening,editing and saving out of a bunch of nested menu dialog boxes as in Photoshop.
    00aaAR-479979684.jpg
     
  21. JC, nothing should be a excuse to take a great picture first in camera. As a matter of fact, a lot of my image where taken in jpeg for multiple reason; the camera just shoot in jpeg, i need a faster burst rate, i didtn have enough memory card etc... im not saying you cant get great picture with a jpeg, im saying that you have more info with a raw to start with (as Andrew explain it) and i dont see the point of shoothing a tif vs a jpeg since it take longer to write on the card, you fit less images per card and others reason.
    Im suggesting that if you dont want to shoot in raw (because your photoshop is too old, because you dont know how etc) then shoot in jpeg.. because in any case, even if you open the TIF in Ps, you still need to save the file anyway correct?.. so at that time you just save it as a TIF then. space wise, speed wise .. its wiser ; ) IF you have correctly expose your image, a TIF or a JPEG wont change that.
    As Tim demomnstrate, the OP should get is hand on a raw developer like ACR or better Lr.. because if he is shoothing that good, all he need is a simple darkroom program to get the best out of is image, and ACR and Lightroom is that kind of tool vs Ps.
    you want a simple workflow? you then want a simple program that does complex things easy.. Lightroom is exactly that + the management of your image and the amazing print capability..
    00aaCS-480005684.jpg
     
  22. I downloaded DNG converter and it doesn't work with CS​
    How so? It should allow you to use Photoshop CS with those DNGs.
     
  23. Well Nikon's free ViewNX should allow you to convert the RAW files IF you don't want to spend any money on software right now.
    But shortchanging yourself on current software is a poor choice with that camera. And it doesn't make sense not to use software that has been adapted to work with it.
     
  24. I gave Photoshop away as a cumbersome and awkward programme and since what I use is equally sophisticated, capable and current I have no great desire to spend on anything else that I cannot see any need for. I don't see that the posted illustrations prove anything one cannot do with what I have. I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow ... though I don't really see it has much to do with photography as opposed to the technical side of taking photos. But each to their own I guess as a pastime.
     
  25. I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow ... though I don't really see it has much to do with photography​
    Did you read the Rendering the Print article? It has a huge amount to do with photography.
     
  26. How so? It should allow you to use Photoshop CS with those DNGs.
    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.
     
  27. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Why the heck are you wanting to convert to DNG? I didn't think anyone did that anymore.
     
  28. acm

    acm

    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:
    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?
     
  29. 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.
    ____
    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.
    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.
    ____
    I know that those that have jumped on the raw bandwagon need to justify it somehow​
    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?
     
  30. acm

    acm

    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?
     
  31. Why the heck are you wanting to convert to DNG? I didn't think anyone did that anymore.​
    There a number of significant advantages 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 continues to evolve and provide more advantages! 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.
     
  32. 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?​
    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.
    IF we’re paying 20% of the cost for that, we’re getting ripped off.
     
  33. 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.​
    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 Camera Raw?
    What settings did you apply for the preferences in the DNG converter?
     
  34. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    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?
     
  35. Andrew, it's been a long time since I heard someone advice converting to dng.​
    Are we to take this as saying you are not keeping up on technology?
    You're right, that's kind of a dated article and things have certainly moved on in the digital darkroom since it was written.​
    Yes, as I pointed out, since the article was written, there are even more advantages to using DNG.
    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​
    That’s not at all how I read it! He states he uses Photoshop and can’t 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.
    Does Nikon software open dng's yet?​
    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.
    I was one of the last hold-outs that converted to dng as everyone I knew stopped long before me.​
    You should get to know some other people in the know about such things .
    To balance things out in an objective manner for us, do you have an article on the disadvantages of converting to dng?​
    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.
    But the question about balance is a bit like someone say “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”. 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!
     
  36. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  37. 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.
    https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html
    This book by Martin Ewing makes a good case for using a DNG workflow:
    Lightroom 3: Streamlining Your Digital Photography Process
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047060705X/
    And to a somewhat lesser extent this one does also:
    The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321680707/
     
  38. Thanks for the links, Richard.
    But are the newest, latest improvements 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.
     
  39. 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?​
    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.
    In terms of reading up on the new features, this is a decent start:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57371809-1/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/
     
  40. 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.
    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 :)
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    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.
     
  43. all the while i'm hesitant of putting my archiving scheme in Adobe's hands.​
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  44. The primary potential drawback to converting from camera raw to DNG was an issue in this discussion: Converting DNG files back to camera raw
    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.
     
  45. 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:
    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:
    Camera Raw 2.4 and later: The DNG file will be readable by Camera Raw 2.4 (Photoshop CS) and later, and Lightroom 1.0 and later
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Custom:
    o Backward Version Option: DNG 1.1, DNG 1.3 (default 1.3)
    o Checkbox: Linear (demosaiced) (default unchecked)​
     
  46. Thank you for that thorough DNG compatibility rundown, Brooks.
    I was expecting a much shorter list for such a standardized format.
    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!
    Anyone here get the impression "specification" is a loaded word?
     
  47. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "But you have to put your faith into the data system be it Adobe or Nikon."
    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.
    "I’ve been doing this stuff long enough..."
    What stuff is that, exactly?
     
  48. Not for me at the moment, Andrew. With a nef​
    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.
    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.
    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.​
    Then don’t. 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.
    Proprietary raw formats are a disservice to photographers.
    What stuff is that, exactly?​
    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.
     
  49. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    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...
     
  50. I'd like to stick with Adobe, so can CS5 import my RAW files from my D800 or do I need CS6?
     
  51. I'd like to stick with Adobe, so can CS5 import my RAW files from my D800 or do I need CS6?​
    Convert to DNG and you’ll be able to use CS5 but you’ll be missing the significant benefits of PV2012 processing in ACR 7 which is part of CS6.
     
  52. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Convert to DNG and you’ll be able to use CS5"

    Your D800 nef files will open just fine in CS5 without converting to DNG. I'm not sure why Andrew is being one-sided and misleading on this dng issue. Start a new thread Brian, "Why have you stopped or wont use DNG?"
     
  53. ...but you’ll be missing the significant benefits of PV2012 processing in ACR 7 which is part of CS6.​
    Yes, at an additional cost of $200 photographers will finally get rid of those pesky edge halos when applying heavy Fill and Recovery especially on single shot HDR processing. Something I've been waiting to be fixed since ACR 4. Fortunately I don't have too many images that exhibit this because I found alternative ACR tools to get what I wanted at the cost of a bit of clarity loss in shadow detail. Something's going screwy with the fonts and paragraph breaks just now.
     
  54. I'm not sure why Andrew is being one-sided and misleading on this dng issue.​
    Misleading? Seriously? If a user has difficulties using ACR on a newly supported camera, the solution is simple and required (DNG). Yes, checking all the cameras supported, the D800 will work IF the end user has updated ACR to 6.7. Prior to that possibility (and that was a possibility for awhile), the only way to handle that format was to convert to DNG. Forgive me for not checking that the recent update to ACR (6.7) now supports the native NEF.
    ACR 6.7 was released May of this year. Photoshop CS5 was release on April 2010 while the D800 was released February of 2012. Another example of users wanting to work with Adobe (or any 3rd party raw converter) having to deal with between February and May. Kind of like having a new film come to market but being forced to use a single lab to process their film for 4 months.
     
  55. Oh and Eric, you should see this new post:
    http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00abd2
    Had Nikon (or Canon) provided a save as DNG switch, easily accomplished as we have for JPEG, that older Epson P3000 would support this newer camera. According to Epson, the viewer will support DNG (saved from Photoshop and the DNG converter, presumably any camera that follows the spec).
    This provides even more ammo for photographers to demand that camera manufacturers support an open raw format. As an owner of an Epson and Sanho HyperDrive portable device, I’m going to be unhappy when I upgrade to a newer camera and find I can’t use these useful pieces of hardware.
     
  56. I ended up getting CS6 and love it. With the bridge I just open them into a window where I can change WB and or exposure if necessary then import to PS. That's exactly what I wanted. Simple. Thanks everyone!
     
  57. I had PhotoShop CS3 and bought a Canon S95 compact digital camera. CS3 would not read the CR2 Canon Raw file and Adobe would not upgrade CS3 because it was too old. I had to buy CS5. (incidentally, when I tried to upgrade lightroom to the latest version I discovered it would not run on Windows XP, just Win7.) Andrew's points are well-taken.
     

Share This Page